[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23617-23620]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 23617]]

                            DRILLING IN ANWR

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come to this Chamber--and I am 
pleased to do so after the excellent statement by my friend and 
colleague from Georgia--to speak about the addition of the House energy 
bill to the railroad retirement bill before us. This


amendment is the wrong amendment offered at the wrong time.
  The House energy bill, with all due respect, is, in my opinion, an 
unwise proposal that was written really for a different time, as 
Senator Cleland's remarks not only suggest but illustrate quite 
specifically. The bill proposes to open the Arctic Refuge for drilling, 
which is bad environmental policy and bad energy policy.
  We will soon have the opportunity to give our Nation's long-term 
energy strategy the thoughtful consideration that it deserves and that 
the American people deserve. I look forward to the introduction by the 
majority leader, soon, of his balanced, comprehensive energy bill, and 
I look forward to debating it when we return after the first of the 
year.
  We should not be attempting to pass such significant legislation 
dealing with so fundamental and complicated a problem as America's 
energy needs and systems in such a summary fashion as an amendment to a 
bill of this kind. We should, and I am confident will, give it the 
thorough, thoughtful, balanced debate after the first of the year.
  We owe it to the American people to determine whether the measure 
before us is a responsible and responsive solution to our energy needs 
or simply a distraction. To determine that, we do not need to hold up 
pictures of baby caribou or mother polar bears, although I find those 
pictures not only attractive but moving. We only need to ask a very 
businesslike question: What do we gain and what do we lose from 
drilling for oil in ANWR?
  I think, when we work that question back dispassionately to an 
answer, we see the error of the proposal to drill in the Arctic Refuge 
that is before the Senate today and will be voted on on Monday, 
procedurally at least.
  I can tell you what we gain in probably less than a minute. It would 
take days to catalog what we lose. I am prepared, if necessary, if the 
occasion arises, to take days to talk about and catalog what we will 
lose as a nation if we drill in the Arctic Refuge.
  So let me start with what I believe, in fairness, we would gain.
  Even if oil companies started drilling tomorrow in the refuge--which, 
of course, is never going to happen that quickly--even if we mistakenly 
adopted this legislation, it would take at least 10 years for any crude 
to be delivered to refineries. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates 
there is, at best, a 6-month supply of economically recoverable oil--a 
yield that would be spread over 50 years.
  What are the costs?
  The visible damage, of course, would be substantial: An environmental 
treasure permanently lost, hundreds of species threatened, 
international agreements jeopardized, oil spills further endangering 
the Alaskan landscape, and an increase in air pollution and greenhouse 
gas emissions, among other costs.
  The unseen damage of drilling would be just as real: A nation lulled 
into believing it has taken a step toward energy independence--
arguably, by its supporters, a large step--when, in fact, it has done 
no such thing; a nation believing it is extracting oil in an 
environmentally sensitive way, when, in fact, no methods have been 
discovered that can avoid damage to this beautiful, untouched 
wilderness area of America; all in all, the American people misled on a 
host of critical issues. Finally, this plan would threaten something 
even more precious than what I have mentioned; that is, some of our 
most treasured American values, including the fundamental American 
value of conserving, conservation, conserving what the Good Lord has 
given us in natural treasures in the 50 American States.
  The first claim that my colleagues make is that drilling in the 
Arctic is a necessary part of a balanced, long-term energy strategy. 
But, respectfully, calling this part of a strategic energy plan is as 
if to call crude oil a beverage; it is literally and figuratively hard 
to swallow. This ill-considered plan will do nothing to wean us from 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  Drilling in the Alaskan national wildlife refuge is, in fact, a 
pipeline dream, a decision that will produce just a slight uptick in 
our oil production 10 years down the road and at considerable cost to 
our environment, our values, and our policies. It will create far fewer 
jobs than dozens of smarter alternatives which depend on American 
technology and American innovation and American industry.
  The much quoted study indicating that Arctic drilling would result in 
750,000 jobs has since been widely discredited. Even its authors have 
acknowledged that its methodology was flawed. Now the agreed-upon job 
creation figure is much closer to 43,000, and all of those jobs are 
short term, as opposed to the permanent jobs that would be created 
through the development of other alternative, innovative forms of 
energy, including conservation.
  This plan also does not move us one step closer to the very valuable, 
critical goal of energy independence. First, it will take at least a 
decade to bring to market any oil that might be discovered in the 
refuge, making it useless in the context of the current international 
crisis. Incidentally, there is a conservative estimate from the 
Department of the Interior during the administration of former 
President Bush that has since been reiterated by many people, including 
oil industry executives, and that is the 10-year lead-in time.
  Secondly, we should realize that Alaskan crude oil is not shipped 
east of the Rocky Mountains, meaning that none of this oil is refined 
into home heating oil that is used in the entire Northeast and other 
parts of Middle America. Further, oil supplies are not needed for the 
production of electricity. Nationwide, only 2 percent of electricity is 
generated by oil.
  Finally, let's realize that increasing our dependence on oil as a 
source of energy is no way to wean ourselves off foreign oil in the 
long run. The statistics repeated frequently make it clear that we 
cannot drill our way into energy independence. The United States uses 
about 25 percent of the world's oil but possesses only 2 percent of its 
reserves. So the way to energy independence is clearly through 
conservation, through using less than 25 percent of the world's oil and 
for the development of new technologies that will provide genuine 
energy independence.
  The most important step, of course, we can take is reducing oil use 
in the transportation sector, which is responsible for over two-thirds 
of the oil consumed in the United States, and it is climbing. We can do 
that with technological methods that are in reach. Many of them are in 
our grasp already in our vehicles.
  Arctic Refuge oil is simply not the most secure source of energy for 
the Nation. Of course, I am not suggesting that those who support 
drilling in the refuge are in any way neglecting our Nation's energy 
security. None of my colleagues would say that of those of us who 
oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge. We all agree that we want to 
achieve energy independence and greater energy security. Our difference 
is about the methods and means for doing so.
  At the same time, we have to realize the irony of the present 
situation. Just as we enter an age of heightened awareness regarding 
potential security risks at our nuclear plants and our other energy 
production centers, many Members of Congress are set on pursuing an 
alternative that, on top of its other liabilities, happens to be less 
secure than many other options. They are more difficult to secure than 
many other options. The fact is that the 25-year-old Trans-Alaskan 
Pipeline itself is vulnerable to disruption. More than half of it is 
elevated and indefensible. It has already been bombed twice years ago 
and shot at more recently. And the pipeline today is beset with 
accelerated corrosion, erosion, and stress.
  There is, of course, one other critical reason we oppose this plan, 
and that is the damage it will do to the Arctic Refuge itself. We 
should not countenance such a blatant broadside on one of the jewels of 
America's environment. This threat, to me, is made even more 
frustrating by the claim that supporters of drilling have made that the 
refuge can be opened up to oil exploration in an environmentally 
sensitive manner. The

[[Page 23618]]

Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge is known as the American Serengeti. 
It is inhabited by 135 species of birds, 45 species of land mammals. 
The plain crosses all five different echo-regions of the Arctic.
  It is a very beautiful picture--until you add oil exploration. I urge 
my colleagues to look very carefully at the suggestion that the result 
of oil drilling in the refuge would just be a small blemish on the 
grand landscape of the refuge--a little worm hole on a nice red apple. 
First, there will be a series of blemishes--dozens of holes that will 
be connected together by roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure; 
spidering out from these blemishes would be an elaborate additional 
infrastructure of roads, pipelines, air strips, and processing plants.
  The web would almost certainly include permanent facilities, such as 
roads, airstrips, docks, staging areas, central processing facilities, 
gathering centers, compressor plants, seawater injection plants, gas 
processing plants, power stations, guard stations, housing and 
maintenance facilities, utility lines, garbage disposal sites, gravel 
pits, and more. In the end, it would make a terrible change in this 
refuge.
  Mr. President, the House bill, as you know, limited development in 
the refuge to 2,000 acres. But it is critically important for my 
colleagues to understand that that figure expressly excludes roads and 
pipelines and fails to define the acreage as contiguous. So the 
illusion of minimal impact is just that; it is an imaginary landscape 
painted in oil.
  Quite simply, we are forced to make a choice between this magnificent 
piece of America and its preservation for all the generations that will 
follow us as Americans and the development of this refuge for oil. I 
have made mine, and I believe the American people support it. Why? 
Because conserving our great open spaces is fundamentally an 
affirmation of our core values.
  Conservation is not a Democratic or Republican value; it is a 
quintessential American value. The ethic of conservation tells us that 
it is not only sentimentally difficult to part with beautiful 
wilderness, it is practically unwise because in doing so we deny future 
generations a precious piece of our common culture.
  Let's remember, in the aftermath of September 11, that most Americans 
have been stepping back and asking themselves what is important, what 
do we value. I believe that millions of our fellow Americans have, 
among other things, come to the conclusion, alongside family and faith, 
that they value America's great natural resources.
  Let me recall, finally, the words of the great President Teddy 
Roosevelt, who, back in 1916, seemed to understand this issue very 
clearly. He wrote:

       The ``greatest good for the greatest number'' applies to 
     the number within womb of time, compared to which those now 
     alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the 
     whole, including the unborn generations, bids us to restrain 
     an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the 
     heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the 
     conservation of wildlife and the larger movement for the 
     conservation of all our natural resources are essentially 
     democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.

  I could not say it more eloquently or more directly than the great 
TR.
  I thank my colleagues. I hope they will vote this amendment down and 
we will return to a full and wholesome debate of our energy policies 
after the first of the year.
  I thank the President and yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I could enter into a 
colloquy with my friend from Connecticut.
  The Senator from Alaska would inquire whether the Senator from 
Connecticut has ever been invited up to the area by the Native people 
of Alaska and the residents of Kaktovik who are in a position where 
they have 95,000 acres of their own land. They have the village of 
Kaktovik, and they don't even have the authority to drill for natural 
gas to heat their homes.
  I noted in the presentation from the Senator there was no reference 
to the interest of the people who live in the area. And for his 
edification, we have pictures of those communities and those children 
and the hopes and aspirations of those individual Alaskans who are 
looking for a better way of life, looking for alternative jobs, better 
health standards, and better education, and it seems to me that we 
ought to have some concern for their livelihood.
  They support opening this area. Yet all the emphasis seems to be on 
the environmental issues associated with ANWR. It appears in almost 
every presentation we have heard on the other side of this issue that 
the needs of the people are overlooked.
  This is a picture of the town hall in Kaktovik. We have children on a 
snow machine and a bicycle. The point of these pictures is that there 
are real people living there. There is very little consideration given 
to their wishes or views.
  These are the kids going to school. You notice that they are Eskimo 
children. They, too, have hopes and aspirations.
  Now, if I can show you the next chart, perhaps my friend who has 
never been there can understand this area over here. This undeformed 
and deformed area consists of 1.5 million acres of ANWR. Now I know the 
Senator knows there are 19 million acres in ANWR. So this is the only 
area at risk. But as you see over here, this is the 95,000 acres that 
are owned by the Natives of Kaktovik, but they are precluded; they have 
no access.
  Now, I would ask the Senator if that is a fair and equitable solution 
to keep any American citizen bound, if you will, by Federal 
restrictions that don't allow them to develop their own land.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, in responding to my friend and 
colleague from Alaska, it is my conclusion that the Native peoples of 
Alaska are of mixed opinion on this question of drilling for oil in the 
Arctic refuge. We have certainly heard testimony here in the Senate 
from differing points of view. I hear what the Senator said about this 
group of Native people. Obviously, we have heard very eloquent 
testimony from representatives of the Gwich'in people in the area who 
have made a different choice and want to preserve what they have 
described as part of not only the beauty of the environment but part of 
their spiritual heritage as a source of life in that area.
  So I would say my judgment is that opinion is mixed, and my opinion 
is that, having made this choice, it would be a shame to have to do the 
damage that oil exploration would do to the refuge to find adequate and 
uplifting employment for the people to which the Senator from Alaska 
refers. There ought to be a better way.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would certainly agree there ought to be a better 
way. Perhaps the Senator is not aware of the public opinion on this 
issue and how it has changed rather dramatically.
  This is a poll that was done by IPSOS-Reid firm, well-known, and the 
highlights of the poll indicate 95 percent of Americans say Federal 
action on energy is important, and 72 percent say passing an energy 
bill is a higher priority than any other action Congress might take. 
Seventy-three percent of Americans say Congress should make the energy 
bill part of President Bush's stimulus plan, and 67 percent of 
Americans say exploration of new energy sources in the United States, 
including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is convincing 
reason to support passing an energy policy bill.
  I would be happy to provide this to the Senator from Connecticut 
because I think it provides some reality of the interests of our State 
in reference to development possibilities. Connecticut is a developed 
State, in population and land patterns, and so forth. But if you had 
had an opportunity to visit Alaska you would get some idea that we are 
a pretty big hunk of real estate. We have 365 million acres in our 
State.
  When you use the phrase ``this huge area at risk,'' I think you are 
being a little incomplete in your reference to what Congress has 
already restricted in this area. The ANWR area is 19 million acres. 
That is the size of the State of South Carolina. If you look at the 
map, you will see where it is as far as its makeup in comparison with 
the entire State. But what we have done, what Congress has done I think 
is a pretty good job of conservation. Out of the 19

[[Page 23619]]

million acres, they have made 8\1/2\ million acres into a wilderness in 
perpetuity, and they left this other area untouched by Congress when 
they set aside the coastal plain specifically for determination back in 
1980 because of the prospects for major oil and gas discoveries. Now 
the footprint here, as you indicate in your statement, under the 
current bill, H.R. 4, is 2,000 acres. That is not very much. But when 
you indicate ``all this development'', this is written obviously by 
some of the environmental groups, and they are very much opposed to 
this because we have an infrastructure already built, 800 miles of 
pipeline.
  If the Senator from Connecticut had been here and debated the issue 
of whether or not to open up Prudhoe Bay, we would be dealing with 
exactly the same issues, only some that are more complex, because the 
concern was: What happens when you build an 800-mile pipeline across 
the breadth of Alaska? Are the animals going to cross under it, over 
it, or will there be a fence? Will it be a hot pipeline? In permafrost? 
Will it melt, and so forth?
  This pipeline is owned by the three major oil companies in the 
country: Exxon, British Petroleum, and Phillips Petroleum. It is in 
their best interest to keep it up. So these allegations that somehow 
this is unsafe--they continually maintain it. As you know, in any 
industrial activity, there is a certain amount of wear and tear, and so 
forth. But it is one of the construction wonders of the world. It is 
already in. So this infrastructure you are generalizing is not going to 
occur.
  You have the airport here in Kaktovik. You have the residents there, 
but the technology is different currently because we use ice roads. We 
don't use permanent roads. That is the technology that is developed. 
This picture shows the kind of ice road that we do in Alaska. We do it 
all in the wintertime. As consequence, there is no gravel. Most of the 
pipeline construction that will take place will be on the surface. But 
if you look at the compatibility of what happens with the pipeline, it 
is very friendly to some of the wildlife.
  I think the Senator from Connecticut perhaps has seen this. This is a 
picture of Prudhoe Bay, and these are not stuffed animals. They are 
real. Here is another one relative to what the bears are doing to the 
pipeline. It beats walking in the snow.
  So a lot of these generalizations are exaggerated. What is not 
exaggerated is there is no sensitivity to the residents of the area. To 
suggest somehow the Gwich'ins, who are a population based mostly in 
Canada, are opposed entirely to oil and gas exploration is a bit 
extreme. Three-quarters of the Gwich'ins live in Canada, and the 
Gwich'ins in Canada have developed a corporation and are now drilling 
on Gwich'in land in Canada, and the Gwich'ins in Alaska for the most 
part are funded by the Sierra Club in their efforts to terminate this. 
I have copies of the leases they signed. The Native village of Ekwok--
which is adjacent to the route of the Porcupine caribou--they have sold 
their own leases for oil and gas exploration in Alaska. They are 
looking for jobs as well. There is more to this than meets the eye.
  I wonder if the Senator is aware that the Gwich'ins have leased their 
land previously in Alaska, and they leased it specifically for oil 
development back in, I think it was 1984?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I had not heard that, of course, but I 
am glad to pursue the question. What I have heard is the very fervent 
and, I found, compelling testimony of the Gwich'in people who have come 
to Congress to speak to us against drilling in the refuge.
  I will say a few words in response, if I may, to what the Senator 
from Alaska said. Alaska is a big piece of real estate. I believe those 
were the words used. Connecticut is a small piece of real estate. It is 
more developed, although the last time I looked, more than two-thirds 
of our State of Connecticut and the great popular sentiment in the 
State was to limit development, to preserve those natural spaces. For 
the same reasons, there is a national movement of support for 
preserving the great, very unusual, natural spaces in Alaska.
  I say also, from the experts I have talked to, the area involved is 
really unique. The coastal plain is the biological heart of the whole 
refuge. So it has to be given a special status.
  I quote from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that the effects of 
disturbance and displacement of the Porcupine caribou herd are likely 
to occur more rapidly and at a much greater scale if oil development is 
allowed in the refuge. The accumulative effects of reduced access to 
the coastal plain habitat caused by industrial development would be a 
major adverse impact on the herd. Notwithstanding the pictures we have 
seen, that is the expert judgment given in a letter to our colleague 
from Illinois, Senator Durbin.
  Finally, most every poll I have seen still shows American public 
opinion opposed to drilling in the refuge, even at a time when concern 
about energy has risen. I suppose this gets to a point that sounds like 
the old line about economists, that if you lay them end to end across 
the world, they would not reach a conclusion.
  I will present other polls. The most recent I have seen taken by the 
Mellman Group, based on a national survey of 1,000 U.S. voters that was 
conducted in early October, found that 57 percent of Americans did not 
believe drilling in the refuge would reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil. An independent poll taken by Gallup from October 8 to 11 showed a 
majority of Americans, 51 percent, opposed oil exploration in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Beyond the polling, as I said earlier, to me this is a matter of 
national principles, national values, national policies, what makes 
common sense in terms of achieving energy security and energy 
independence, energy efficiency, which my friend from Alaska and I, and 
I presume all Members of the Senate, have as common goals.
  While public opinion is significant--and I am glad, according to the 
polls I cited, it is on our side in the debate --about whether to drill 
in the Arctic Refuge, ultimately I think we all have to make our 
judgment about what is best for our country. My judgment is that 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge for oil would not be best for our 
country.
  I apologize to my friend from Alaska that I have a previous 
commitment and I have to leave. I have a feeling we will return to this 
debate again after the first of the year and probably at length. I have 
great respect for the Senator from Alaska, so I look forward to that 
debate. Hopefully the result will be more knowledge and perhaps even a 
bit of wisdom.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I appreciate the comments. I can assure the Senator 
from Connecticut that the Senator from Alaska intends to bring this 
matter up to a vote, as does my Senate colleague, Senator Stevens.
  The frustrating thing is we are always put in a position of having to 
identify with detail and rationale the reasons we believe the 1002 Area 
could be opened safely. Of course, we come from the State and we know 
something about the State and the factual information. What we have 
attempted to do over the years is to encourage Members to come and see 
for themselves so they can make a fair evaluation, because the action 
taken by the mass will determine what happens in our State.
  It seems to put us in a position where what is best for Alaska and 
what is best for our constituents based on what they tell us they want 
is somewhat overridden by the dictate of those outside the state. We 
happen to be the only State still under development. We came in with 
Hawaii, but obviously we are a State with huge resources. We have 56 
million acres of wilderness in our State. I think somebody figured out 
how much oil there is in ANWR and the comparison of whether it is a 
viable supply. They did a calculation, and based on 10 billion barrels, 
it would amount to a supply for Connecticut for 126\1/2\ years.
  I see my colleague has had to leave to take a phone call, but I am 
going to be answering throughout the day some of his generalizations 
because, frankly, they do not hold water, and they certainly do not 
hold oil. He indicated a

[[Page 23620]]

willingness to proceed on a very studied and timely process he hopes 
will be reflected in the bill we understand is coming down, not from 
the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee but, rather, 
from the majority leader.
  We have been working on this legislation in committee for several 
years. We have held extensive hearings. So it is not something that has 
not had a great deal of forethought, has not had a great deal of 
consideration. It was removed, through the dictates of the majority 
leader, from the committee of jurisdiction. It has been taken away from 
the committee, and whatever bill we will be seeing will not be 
representative of a bipartisan effort but strictly the result of 
Senator Daschle and I assume others on their side of the aisle. So we 
will be right back in the same position we were on the Finance 
Committee relative to the manner in which the stimulus package was 
submitted. It was submitted on one side, and the Republicans had no 
input into it.
  The point is this Nation needs a policy, regardless of what poll we 
see, on the issue of national energy security.
  There is virtually total support we should have an energy bill.
  Now the merits of ANWR obviously get us into a discussion, but we 
believe that dramatically there has been a turnaround in public 
opinion. One of the reasons that turnaround has occurred is the 
realization of what happened off Iraq a few weeks ago where we were 
boarding a tanker. We had the U.S. Navy inspecting the tanker for the 
specific purpose of determining whether Saddam Hussein was exporting 
oil above and beyond that of the guidelines of the U.N. They boarded 
this ship. The ship sank. Two American sailors died. That might not 
have been necessary had our previous President not vetoed a bill in 
1995 that would have allowed the opening of ANWR because that did pass 
this body in 1995.
  These are what ifs, I know, but nevertheless, to suggest somehow we 
cannot do this safely is basically incorrect. That we would not get oil 
for 10 years is totally incorrect. We will have oil within 18 months to 
2 years because we only have about 60 miles of pipeline. To say it is a 
6-month supply is not accurate because that would presume no other 
domestic production anywhere in the U.S., and no imports of oil. Under 
what realistic circumstance would all other oil production be 
terminated in the United States as well as imports coming in? ANWR is 
estimated to hold between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels. If it is half 
that, it will be as large as Prudhoe Bay, which has supplied this 
Nation with 25 percent of its oil for the last 27 years. Many of the 
opponents who are going to speak against this have not been up there. 
They have not met with the Native people who are affected. Our people 
in Alaska, as American citizens, deserve that consideration.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

                          ____________________