[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2442-2445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have been given a few moments this 
morning to share with you a concern I have over legislation that 
undoubtedly will be introduced at some time in the Senate. It involves 
the issue of ANWR, which is an area in my State of Alaska that is 
looked upon by many as a partial solution to our energy crisis and to 
others as a sacrifice of our environmental character and quality. Let 
me, just for reference, identify the ANWR area because, again, I think 
we need to keep things in perspective.
  This is ANWR. It is about 19 million acres, the size of the State of 
South Carolina. You see this area way up in the corner, that is a 
proportion, the proportion of how it looks in relation to the entire 
landmass of the State of Alaska. The point I want to bring out to my 
colleagues is that roughly half, 8.5 million acres, are in wilderness 
in perpetuity. The other portion is refuge, leaving a coastal plain of 
about 1.5 million acres about which only Congress can make a 
determination whether or not it could or should be opened.
  As a consequence, in our energy bill which we introduced yesterday, I 
found there was very little focus on the bill itself. Most of the focus 
seems to be on the issue of ANWR. I want to make sure everyone 
understands, as we look at this energy crisis, ANWR is not the answer. 
It is not intended to be the answer. But it is part of the solution to 
our energy crisis for specific reasons. A, we are 56-percent dependent 
on imported oil. B, as a consequence of that, one has to question at 
what time, at what point we begin, if you will, to jeopardize our 
national energy security because of our increased dependence on 
imported oil.
  I was asked the other day: Senator what was our dependence in 1973 
when we had the Arab oil embargo; it was 37 percent, it is 56 percent 
now. The Department of Energy says if we keep going the way we are, we 
will be over 62 percent or 63 percent by the year 2006 or 2007. At what 
point do we really compromise our national security by being so 
dependent on outside sources: Do we rely on Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, 
Mexico, and other areas?
  Let's look back to 1991-1992. We fought a war over oil. We stopped 
Saddam Hussein from going into Kuwait. He had his eyes on Saudi Arabia 
as well. He wanted to control the world's supply of oil. So we have 
already pretty much made the commitment of just how far we will go. Now 
the question is, As we become more dependent, when does our national 
security really become jeopardized? I think we are there already.
  As a consequence, any effort, in my opinion, by Members to consider 
introducing legislation that would put ANWR in a wilderness in 
perpetuity really puts our national security at risk. I ask Members who 
obviously have a sensitivity concerning the environment--which we all 
do--to reflect a little bit on the merits of this legislation. At a 
time when we have an energy crisis in this country, is it appropriate 
that Members, who obviously are extremely sensitive to the pressures by 
the environmental community, would yield to those pressures and suggest 
we put the area where we are most likely to make a major discovery, in 
North America, off limits at a time when we have an energy crisis? At a 
time when we have previously fought a war over oil?

[[Page 2443]]

  Let me share a couple of other observations because I think they 
reflect meaningfully on the message I would like to deliver briefly 
today. That is the myth associated with ANWR, that somehow this is the 
last untouched area in the United States. That is absolutely incorrect.
  Let me show a beautiful picture of this 1002 area. This is the 
million and a half acres that, indeed, are part of ANWR. There are 
probably 100,000 caribou in that picture. It is a little bit difficult 
to see it. But it is interesting to reflect the place from which the 
picture was taken.
  I ask unanimous consent that the certification from the photographer, 
Kenneth Whitten, in a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, be printed in 
the Record. It was June 20, 2000, and it identifies specifically where 
the picture was taken.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                Fairbanks, AK,

                                                    June 20, 2000.
     Senator Barbara Boxer,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Following are specific answers to 
     questions you asked about photographs I took that were 
     produced as a poster by the Porcupine Caribou Management 
     Board.
       1. The photos were taken at Beaufort Lagoon, an abandoned 
     DEW line station on the arctic coast east of Kaktovik, 
     Alaska. Beaufort Langoon lies within the 1002 area, about 6-8 
     miles from its eastern boundary. The photos were taken July 
     4, 1991. About 100,000 caribou walked past Beaufort Lagoon 
     that day.
       2. The photos were taken from a rooftop, looking south and 
     southwest across the lagoon toward the mainland and the 
     coastal plain. All the flatter terrain in the foreground of 
     the photos and all of the visible caribou are within the 1002 
     area. The Brooks Range mountains in the distance are south of 
     the 1002 area, but are readily visible from all parts of the 
     1002 area on clear days. The snowcapped peaks in the photo 
     are the highest peaks in the Brooks Range. In the far western 
     part of the 1002 area, the mountains are even closer to the 
     coast, but the peaks are not as high. East of the 1002 area 
     the mountains are also lower, but closer to the coast.
       3. The image is typical of the 1002 coastal plain. However, 
     a person standing at ground level on flat terrain would not 
     have quite as good a view. There are many low hills or bluffs 
     along watercourses in the 1002 area that offer similar 
     overviews of the coastal plain, but the old buildings at 
     Beaufort Lagoon may be the only place right on the coast in 
     the 1002 area where one can get high enough to see so much of 
     the plain at once. Similar or better views are readily 
     available throughout the 1002 area from aircraft.
       4. All of the lower, flat terrain in the photo (where the 
     caribou are) is within the 1002 area and potentially 
     available for oil and gas development.
       5. The coastal plain within the Arctic Wildlife refuge and 
     the 1002 area is generally narrower than the coastal plain 
     further west on the North Slope. Thus wildlife tends to be 
     more concentrated than elsewhere, with waterfowl and 
     shorebird nesting, other migratory birds, caribou calving, 
     muskoxen, land predators, and marine birds and mammals all in 
     closer proximity and denser concentrations than elsewhere on 
     the North Slope. Some other areas of the North Slope have 
     higher abundances of one or a few species, but the ANWR 
     coastal plain has the greatest variety and concentrations for 
     such a relatively small area.
       6. I was the Alaska Department of Fish and Game research 
     biologist in charge of Porcupine Caribou Herd research and 
     monitoring from 1978-1997. I spent 2-6 weeks each summer 
     working on the ANWR coastal plain, plus additional time 
     throughout the rest of the year following the caribou 
     elsewhere on their migrations through northern Alaska and 
     Canada. I served on the Porcupine Caribou Technical Committee 
     (now advisory to the International Porcupine Caribou Board) 
     from about 1979-2000 and I represented the State on the 
     International Porcupine Caribou Board at most meetings from 
     about 1993-2000. From 1996-2000 I was the Regional Research 
     Coordinator for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for 
     interior and northeastern Alaska, but I still maintain an 
     active role in Porcupine Caribou matters. During the late 
     1970s and most of the 1980s I was also involved in research 
     on the Central Arctic Caribou herd in the Prudhoe Bay area. I 
     retired after 24\1/2\ years with the Alaska Department of 
     Fish and Game on May 31, 2000.
       If I can be of any further assistance in your efforts to 
     protect the ANWR coastal plain, please don't hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                               Kenneth R. Whitten.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. ``The photos were taken from a rooftop looking south 
and southwest across the lagoon.'' And it is in the area of the lagoon.
  The significance of it is, if it is in wilderness, what is a rooftop 
doing there?
  The reality is that also within this area is the village Kaktovik, 
which is in the 1002 area, which is often overlooked. This is the same 
part of the land, and it shows the village of about 227 people. It 
shows a radar station, an airport, the ocean, and so forth. It is a 
pretty harsh environment.
  Let me show you another contrast, and the contrast is caribou 
browsing in the Prudhoe Bay area. There is moderate activity. There 
happens to be a drilling rig in that particular picture. You see a 
pipeline. The realization is if the caribou are undisturbed and they 
are not threatened, why do they have a tendency to become used to 
activity?
  The point of these two pictures I think shows the contrast that, 
indeed, we are talking about two different areas. We are talking about 
the Coastal Plain. We are talking about two different herds of caribou. 
But we are still talking about caribou, and we have been able to 
protect those caribou as a consequence of not allowing any harassment, 
shooting, or otherwise as opposed to the Porcupine herd which is 
subject in that area to subsistence hunting, which is traditional among 
the Native people.
  I want to show you the contrast, and I want you to recognize that 
this picture was taken from a roof in a wilderness and in a wilderness 
there is not supposed to be any rooftop. Part of that wilderness 
includes the village where 227 people live. They have children. They 
have schools and so forth.
  Again, I refer to the reality of how Alaskans live in the Arctic. I 
want to show you pictures of some children. This is the little village 
of Kaktovik. These are kids going to school in the morning. You notice 
how they are dressed in their parkas. It is pretty bleak and harsh. The 
realization of that kind of a lifestyle relates to a friend of mine 
named Oliver Leavitt, who is with the Arctic Slope Regional 
Cooperation. The last time I was in Barrow with a group of Senators he 
took us to the new school in Barrow. He said: I use to come to school 
to keep warm. He said: I had to pick up driftwood on the beach early in 
the morning, take it home to our sod home, and then I went to school to 
keep warm.
  I quote a friend of mine by the name of Jacob Adams, who is the 
president of the Regional Corporation:

       I love life in the Arctic. But it is harsh, expensive, and 
     for many, short. My people want decent homes, electricity, 
     and education. We do not want to be undisturbed. Undisturbed 
     means abandoned. It means sod huts and deprivation.

  There is another side to this; that is, the residents who live there, 
and their attitude and their commitment to their lifestyle that depend 
on the caribou.
  We recently had comments by former President Carter. President Carter 
signed the Alaska national interest lands bill in 1980. Alaskans 
assumed at that time that the land issue was resolved. We have put 59 
million acres in wilderness in the State of Alaska. These are the 
areas. I don't expect the President to really reflect on where these 
are. But when you talk about wilderness and talk about ANWR, you also 
talk about other areas that are larger than ANWR that are wilderness in 
Alaska. The question is, How much? Under statehood in 1959, we thought 
we could get a commitment from the Federal Government as to how much 
would be enough. In 1980, we signed an agreement basically under the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Here is a two-page 
list. The point I want to make is that the Wrangell-St. Elias 
wilderness has 87 million acres. We have 8 million in ANWR. Gates of 
the Arctic has 7 million acres. It goes on and on to total roughly 58 
million acres.
  I simply point this out to counter those who suggest that we need 
some area of wilderness in Alaska that is untouched. ANWR is not 
untouched. Gates of the Arctic, for all practical purposes, is 
untouched. Wrangell-St. Elias, for all practical purposes, is 
untouched. Let's keep the arguments in perspective.

[[Page 2444]]

  I will conclude with the statement from President Carter in signing 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980.

       This act of Congress reaffirms our commitment to the 
     environment. It strikes a balance between protecting areas of 
     great beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska's 
     vital oil and gas and mineral and timber resources.

  Mr. President, I quote from the same signing ceremony Mo Udall, the 
chief sponsor of the legislation.

       I'm joyous. I'm glad today for the people of Alaska. They 
     can get on with building a great State. They're a great 
     people. And this matter is settled and put to rest, and the 
     development of Alaska can go forward with balance.

  There you have it. That is what Alaskans believed in at the time this 
was accomplished.
  Let me also advise you that in the President's budget, which came out 
today, on page 69 the President also proposes linking near-term and 
long-term approaches by encouraging new oil and gas production on 
Federal lands and using Federal income from that sale to support 
increased efforts to develop solar, and to develop renewable energy 
sources. The administration's legislative proposal will include opening 
a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Let me show you again that chart because it suggests that we are 
opening only a sliver. You have to keep these things in perspective. 
This is 19 million acres--the size of the State of South Carolina. This 
sliver up here is 1.5 million acres. Industry says that the oil is 
there and they can develop it in less than 2,000 acres.
  The percentage is something that is very hard to communicate to 
people, but it is very real. It is a sliver we are proposing, and it is 
not the total answer to our energy crisis, by any means. But what it 
does is send a very strong signal to OPEC that we mean business about 
reducing our dependence on imported oil. I am convinced once we come to 
grips with that, you are going to see OPEC relax a little bit. They are 
going to increase their production.
  I think you will see the price drop. If we don't do this, they are 
going to get the message. And the message is to reduce production and 
keep the high prices up.
  Again, I encourage my colleagues and the staff listening to recognize 
the significance of any effort to put this permanently away at a time 
when we have an energy crisis that would send terrible signals to OPEC 
and would jeopardize our national energy security. I said this on this 
floor time and time again.
  But as we look at our increasing dependence on imported oil and where 
that oil is coming from now that we are seeing about 750,000 barrels a 
day coming from Iraq that we fought a war with in 1991 and 1992, we are 
forgetting that we lost 147 lives. We are forgetting that as we buy 
Saddam Hussein's oil we are putting it in our airplanes and going over 
and bombing it. That may be an overly simplistic statement. But it is 
factual. We have had over 20,000 sorties where we have enforced the no-
fly zone over Iraq.
  What is he doing with our money? He is developing a missiles and 
biological capabilities. And at whom are these weapons aimed? They are 
aimed at Israel, our greatest ally.
  I hope the American people and my colleagues will reflect a little 
bit on this. Again, this isn't the answer to the energy crisis. This is 
one small part, but it is, I think, fair to bring this up to my 
colleagues and recognize that as we look at the comprehensive energy 
bill that we put in, along with Senator Lott and a number of other 
cosponsors, nobody seems to be paying any attention to the merits of 
this broad, comprehensive bill. It is like you go to a bullfight and 
you want to see some blood. The media and attention seem to be focusing 
on one single thing, ANWR.
  I think it is appropriate that we respond in some detail. We have 
letters from organized labor. This isn't a benefits issue for labor; 
this a job issue for labor. It is estimated there would be about 
750,000 jobs in the United States associated with the development of 
this if, indeed, the oil is there. So it is very real.
  Let me show you what this area looks like in wintertime because it is 
tough, it is harsh. The winter is roughly 10 months of the year. This 
is a picture of it. There it is. That is the tundra in the wintertime. 
In the summertime, why, it looks a little different. I will show you a 
picture with one well to give you some idea of the technology we have 
because we have been able to use ice roads. I think we have a picture 
associated with development in the Arctic. This picture shows that is 
the kind of footprint there is because of technology we have been able 
to develop.
  Let me close with one other observation to my friends from 
California, Washington, and Oregon specifically. The oil production out 
of Alaska goes to the west coast of the United States--virtually all of 
it. We used to export a little of that oil only when it was surplus to 
what the West coast could use. We have not had an export since April of 
2000. If we do not develop a replacement for declining Prudhoe Bay, 
then California, Washington, and Oregon are going to get their oil 
overseas--from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from the rain forests of 
Colombia, these are places where there is no environmental oversight. 
They are going to get it in foreign tankers.
  As a consequence, I think the risk is much higher than getting it 
here in our own country where we can contribute meaningfully to the 
balance of payments, keep jobs in the United States, and have the 
environmental oversight that is appropriate.
  One of the things that bothers me is how many people are concerned 
about developing oil and gas in the United States; yet we have 
environmental laws, both Federal and State, and the highest technology 
in the world. But they do not reflect on the oil coming from overseas 
and what kind of an environmental oversight is associated there. In 
many cases there is virtually none.
  It is manageable. We do have the technology to develop it. And we 
should listen, I think, to the people who live in the area with regard 
to their concerns in relation to the opportunities for a choice of a 
lifestyle, education, and so forth.
  Mr. President, I do appreciate the time allotted to me today. Again, 
I want to emphasize ANWR is not the solution to the energy crisis, but 
it can make a significant difference because as we commit to reduce our 
dependence on imported energy to less than 50 percent by opening ANWR 
alone, if the volume is in the area of a million barrels a day, we 
would be able to achieve that.
  Mr. President, obviously, I will have other opportunities to speak, 
and there are time commitments this morning. But I think the timeliness 
of the matter, and some Members contemplating the merits of going to a 
wilderness bill, that they consider the merits of the points I have 
brought up today.
  Indeed, we have the capability to open up this sliver--and it is a 
sliver--it is a very small fraction of a huge area the size of the 
State of South Carolina. We have 30 years of experience in the Arctic. 
As a consequence, nothing is risk free, but we have learned how to 
eliminate the risk dramatically.
  I hope Members will visit ANWR when we take our Senate trip up there 
on March 30, 31, and the first day of April because I think it is 
necessary to see it, to talk to the people, to look at the old 
technology, reflect on the new technology, and get an appreciation for 
a very unique part of our great Nation, but a very, very harsh 
environment that is blessed with extraordinary resources in the oil and 
gas reserves that exist in the area.
  Mr. President, I conclude my remarks and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page 2445]]



                          ____________________