[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23716-23718]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            ENERGY SECURITY

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is with extreme disappointment that I 
rise to oppose the amendment offered by the Republican leader on behalf 
of the junior Senator from Alaska Mr. Murkowski, and the senior Senator 
from Kansas, Mr. Brownback. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  I am particularly troubled that this amendment was filed as work 
continues to have a bill drafted by the majority leader and brought to 
the floor. Those who have said we need urgency in this matter have 
succeeded. We are working on a bill. But that is not fast enough for 
some, apparently, and this amendment seek to shortcut the process even 
further.
  Energy security is an important issue for America, and one which my 
Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. A national debate is 
unfolding about the role of domestic production of energy resources 
versus foreign imports, about the tradeoffs between the need for energy 
and the need to protect the quality of our environment, and about the 
need for additional domestic efforts to support improvements in our 
energy efficiency and the wisest use of our energy resources. The 
President joined that debate with the release of his National Energy 
Strategy earlier this Congress. The questions raised are serious, and 
differences in policy and approach are legitimate.
  I join with the other Senators today that are raising concerns about 
this amendment. As other Senators have highlighted, the amendment of 
the Senator from Alaska's, Mr. Murkowski, is not comprehensive energy 
legislation. It opens the refuge to oil drilling, subsidizes oil 
companies, and does little to address serious energy issues that have 
been raised in the last few weeks.
  Though the Senator from Alaska will say that his amendment would only 
open up drilling on 2,000 acres of the refuge. That is simply not the 
case. The entire 1\1/2\ million acres of the coastal plain of the 
refuge will be open for oil and gas leasing and exploration. 
Exploration and production wells can be drilled anywhere on the coastal 
plain under this language.
  The first lease sale, and, I stress for my colleagues that this 
refers only to the first sale, has to be at least 200,000 acres.
  I am assuming that when the Senator means that only 2,000 acres will 
be drilled he is referring to the language in H.R. 4 which states, and 
I am paraphrasing,

     the Secretary shall . . . ensure that the maximum amount of 
     surface acreage covered by production and support facilities, 
     including airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or 
     piers for support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres 
     on the coastal plain.

  That limitation is not a clear cap on overall development, Mr. 
President. It does not cover seismic or other exploration activities, 
which have had significant impacts on the Arctic environment to the 
west of the coastal plain. Seismic activities are conducted with 
convoys of bulldozers and ``thumper trucks'' over extensive areas of 
the tundra. Exploratory oil drilling involves large rigs and aircraft.
  The language does not cover the many miles of pipelines snaking above 
the tundra, just the locations where the vertical posts that support 
the pipelines literally touch the ground. In addition, this 
``limitation'' does not require that the 2,000 acres of production and 
support facilities be in one contiguous area. As with the oil fields to 
the west of the Arctic Refuge, development could and would be spread 
out over a very large area.
  Indeed, according to the United States Geological survey, oil under 
the coastal plain is not concentrated in one large reservoir but is 
spread in numerous small deposits. To produce oil from this vast area, 
supporting infrastructure would stretch across the coastal plain. And 
even if this cap were a real development cap, Mr. President, what would 
this mean? Two thousand acres, is a sizable development area. The 
development would be even more troubling if they were located in areas 
that are adjacent to the 8 million acres of wilderness that Congress 
has already designated in the Arctic Refuge which share a boundary with 
the coastal plain.
  This amendment is controversial. Make no mistake, it will generate 
lengthy debate. I oppose it because it cuts short both the legitimate 
debate about drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge that this country 
needs and the legitimate energy debate this country needs. Should this 
amendment be adopted, it would force the national energy legislation to 
be decided in the conference on pension bill--not in debate on an 
actual energy bill.
  I have also heard concerns from the constituents in my State who have 
paid dearly for large and significant jumps in gasoline prices. 
Drilling in the refuge does nothing to address the immediate need of 
the Federal Government to respond to fluctuations in gas prices and 
help expand refining capacity. My constituents experienced prices of 
between $3 to as high as $8 per gallon between September 11 and 12, 
2001. The Department of Energy immediately assured me that energy 
supplies were adequate following the terrorist attacks. These increases 
are now being investigated as possible price gouging by the Department 
of Energy and the State of Wisconsin. With adequate energy resources, 
constituents need assurances that these unjustified jumped can be 
monitored and controlled.
  And I, along with many other Senators, have constituents who are 
concerned about the environmental impacts of this amendment, and what 
it says about our stewardship of lands of wilderness quality.
  I also oppose this amendment for what it lacks. In light of the 
tragic events of September 11, 2001, a key element of any new energy 
security policy should be to actually seek to secure our existing 
energy system--from production to distribution--from the threat of 
future terrorist attack. Americans deserve to know that the Senate has 
protected the existing North Slope oil rigs and pipelines from attack. 
Americans deserve to know that the Senate has considered measures to 
reduce the vulnerability of above ground electric transmission and 
distribution by providing needed investments in siting of below ground 
direct current cables, in researching better transmission technologies, 
and in protecting transformers and switching stations. Americans want 
us to review thoroughly the security of our Nation's domestic nuclear 
power plant safety regimes to ensure that they continue to operate 
well. Finally, Americans living

[[Page 23717]]

downstream from hydroelectric dams want to know that they are safe from 
terrorist initiated dam breaching. Until we can assure them that this 
existing infrastructure is secure, it seems hasty to add additional 
structures that we may not be able to protect.
  The people of my State, and the people of this country, heard the 
President's address to Congress and they are willing to help when 
asked. We also need to have a comprehensive bill to be sure that our 
national energy conservation plans contemplate such contingencies as a 
future domestic need to reduce consumption of energy to help support 
our Armed Forces, if necessary.
  These were issues that the House did not address on August 2, 2001, 
when it passed its bill, because the terrorist attacks of September 11, 
2001, were unthinkable at that time. These are issues that the 
amendment of the Senator from Alaska doesn't address. But we are a 
changed country in response to these tragedies, and these are very real 
issues today, issues that must be addressed.


  In addition, there have been other significant technological changes 
in the last few months which energy legislation should consider. On 
September 19, 2001, a model year 2002 General Motors Yukon which is 
able to run on either a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent 
conventional gasoline or conventional gasoline alone rolled off of the 
line in Janesville, WI. The 2002 model year Tahoes, Suburbans, and 
Denalis with 5.3 liter engines will be able to run on either fuel. But 
while my constituents could buy a vehicle which can run on a higher 
percentage of ethanol fuel, there isn't a place open today to buy that 
fuel in Wisconsin. We could go a long way to reducing dependence upon 
foreign oil by using domestic energy crops and biomass more wisely, and 
we should develop a bill to reflect our new technological capabilities.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, today the only way 
to isolate the U.S. economy from supply disruptions abroad would be to 
forbid the exportation of domestic oil to foreign markets and to 
prohibit domestic oil companies from raising prices. Since net oil 
imports have accounted for about 50 percent of U.S. consumption in 
recent years, such a policy, were it to be implemented, would lead to 
shortages unless domestic oil prices were allowed to rise much higher 
than at present. This is because oil extraction in the United States on 
a large enough scale to meet our energy needs is much too costly to 
compete with foreign producers. For this reason, energy independence in 
the long run would likely result in a price that may be less volatile, 
but certainly a price that is even higher than prices at their recent 
peak.
  Even if the United States could implement such a drastic policy, 
manipulations of oil prices by other oil producing nations could still 
affect the U.S. economy.
  Finally, I oppose this amendment because there is a lingering veil of 
concern that special corporate interests would benefit over our 
citizens by this amendment, and I am prepared to speak on that issue at 
length. I find it particularly troubling that at a time when we face 
the need to provide financial assistance to workers and to sectors of 
our economy severely impacted by September 11 events, we would even 
consider subsidizing the big oil companies. This amendment allows oil 
companies access to federal resources within a federal wildlife refuge. 
My constituents paid the high gasoline costs on September 11 and 12, 
and oil companies profited. Before they get more help from the federal 
government, I think we should be mindful of the help these industries 
are already getting.
  If the Senate chooses to adopt this amendment behind the veil of 
tragedy, it will be an act that increases division in the country when 
we most need unity. The Murkowski amendment should be opposed.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the pending 
amendment and pledge my continued support for the protection of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. As most of my fellow 
Senators will attest, preserving the Alaska wilderness was one of the 
highest priorities of my friend and former colleague from Delaware, 
Bill Roth, and I was proud to join him in this fight.
  Alaska's coastal plain is one of our Nation's last areas of unspoiled 
wilderness and it must be protected from oil development and all the 
activity that comes with it. This practically untouched region is home 
to a wide variety of wildlife, such as polar bears, caribou, and 
hundreds of species of birds, and there is great concern that 
development of the area will threaten this fragile habitat. I urge my 
colleagues to understand the consequences of permanently altering such 
pristine landscape when at this point in time, the amount of oil that 
would be economically developed is speculative at best. I do not 
believe that we should risk potentially irreversible impact on this 
rich environment for the sake of uncertain oil recovery.
  The most recent petroleum assessment report, conducted by the United 
States Geological Survey in 1998, estimated that there was between 3 
billion and 16 billion barrels of oil in the area. But while the 
numbers alone are promising, the issue is how much oil is economically 
recoverable. At a market price of $24 per barrel, the United States 
Geological Survey estimates a 95-percent chance that 2.0 billion 
barrels or more would be economically recoverable and a 5-percent 
chance that 9.4 billion barrels or more would be economically 
recoverable.
  In addition, the best estimates are that if we authorized drilling 
today, oil from ANWR will not be available for at least 7 to 12 years. 
Leasing agreements, geologic characteristics and transportation 
constraints will most certainly affect development rates and production 
levels. Assuming the best case scenario--peak production of oil at an 
increased development rate--the most promising production rate is 
750,000 barrels per day. To put this in perspective, the United States 
consumes about 19 million barrels of oil and refined petroleum products 
a day. In the first 9 months of 2001, the United States imported 1.77 
million barrels of oil per day from Canada, 1.73 million barrels of oil 
per day from Saudi Arabia, 1.58 million barrels of oil per day from 
Venezuela and 1.37 million barrels a day from Mexico.
  Despite the fact that I stand here today in opposition to drilling in 
ANWR, I do recognize the importance of our country moving forward with 
a thorough review of our energy policy and I look forward to our 
discussions in the early part of next year. Our energy policy should be 
comprehensive and balanced. In addition to examining our options for 
increasing production of fossil fuels and stabilizing our supplies, we 
need to explore viable conservation initiatives, make important 
investments into the research and development of renewable and 
alternative energy sources, and consider adapting our regulatory and 
tax structures to help achieve these goals. I know that we can modify 
our energy polices without undermining our longtime environmental 
objectives.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
opposition to the Murkowski-Lott-Brownback amendment, which would open 
up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--America's last untouched 
wildlife refuge--to oil development. It is both untimely to try to 
include such a controversial issue in an unrelated Railroad Retirement 
bill, and unwise to exploit this time of economic downturn and national 
security challenges to open up ANWR for the sake of narrow and divisive 
interests.
  I believe there is no way to justify drilling in ANWR in the name of 
national security. Oil extracted from the refuge would not reach 
refineries for seven to ten years and would never satisfy more than two 
percent of our nation's oil demands at any one time. Therefore, it 
would have no discernible short- or long-term impact on the price of 
fuel or our increasing dependence on OPEC imports. Put another way, the 
amount of economically recoverable oil would increase our domestic 
reserves by only one third of one percent, which would not even make a 
significant dent

[[Page 23718]]

on our imports, much less influence world prices set by OPEC.
  Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would also set a 
terrible precedent. In the past 35 years, ever since Congress passed 
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the government 
has not approved a single oil or gas exploration lease on public refuge 
lands. My concern is that opening up ANWR in the name of a misleading 
and irresponsible national security argument will not only degrade one 
of America's national treasures, but will also expose other priceless 
public lands to new drilling.
  Mr. President, rather than drilling in ANWR, we must focus on 
crafting a deliberative, comprehensive policy that will permanently 
strengthen our national security. We need a bill that endows America 
with a strong and independent 21st century energy system by recognizing 
fuel diversity, energy efficiency, distributed generation, and 
environmentally sound domestic production as the permanent solutions to 
our nation's enduring energy needs. The energy provisions included in 
the Murkowski-Lott amendment fail to meet these goals and would instead 
prolong our antiquated over-reliance on traditional fossil fuels.
  The Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which I serve held a 
series of hearings earlier this year that highlighted particularly 
promising ways we can accomplish these crucial goals. For example, 
these hearings revealed a broad consensus on the need to streamline 
regulatory approval of a privately funded natural gas pipeline from 
Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 states. There are at least 32 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas in existing Alaskan fields and 
building a pipeline to the continental U.S. would create thousands of 
jobs, provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry, and help 
prevent our nation from becoming dependent on foreign natural gas, from 
many of the same Middle Eastern countries from which we import oil.
  Adopting energy efficient technologies is another way to 
significantly advance our national and economic security. For example, 
are my colleagues aware that automakers commonly use low-friction tires 
on new cars to help them comply with fuel economy standards? Because 
there are no standards or efficiency labels for replacement tires, 
however, most consumers unwittingly purchase less efficient tires when 
their originals wear out, even though low-friction tires would only 
cost a few dollars more per tire and would save the average American 
driver $100 worth of fuel over the 40,000-mile life of the tires. Fully 
phased in, better replacement tires would cut gasoline consumption of 
all U.S. vehicles by about three percent, saving our nation over five 
billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. That's the same amount 
the United States Geological Survey says could be economically 
recovered from ANWR.
  I believe that the only way to permanently ensure our nation's 
security is to look beyond policies that continue our country's 
century-old reliance on the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. 
Now is the time to launch the transition to a new, 21st century system 
of distributed generation based on renewable energy sources and 
environmentally responsible fuel cells.
  Imagine if today a significant portion of American homes and 
businesses produced their own electricity from solar panels on their 
roofs, and powered their cars with home-grown biofuels. Our country 
would no longer be at the mercy of OPEC, energy bills would be 
dramatically lower, our air would be cleaner, and our energy system 
could not be devastated by terrorist attacks on centralized power 
plants or transmission lines.
  Mr. President, the American people know this is the direction our 
country must take. Just last month a Gallup Poll showed that 91 percent 
of Americans believe we should invest in new sources of energy such as 
solar, wind, and fuel cells. Ninety-one percent. How often do we see 
such universal support in our politically diverse country?
  Mr. President, only these policies--which will be well represented in 
the energy bill Senators Daschle and Bingaman will bring to the floor 
early next year--will make our energy system truly secure and 
independent. I recognize, along with probably all of my colleagues, 
that inexpensive, reliable energy sources are the lifeblood of our 
economy and higher standard of living. Because our national, economic, 
and environmental security depend on the United States becoming less 
dependent on imported fossil fuels, we must act to develop more diverse 
and environmentally responsible supplies of domestic energy. Neither 
drilling in ANWR nor the rest of Murkowski-Lott energy provisions go 
far enough to accomplish these goals, and I encourage my colleagues to 
vote against invoking cloture on this amendment.

                          ____________________