[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 2898-2900]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday our President, President 
George W. Bush, marked the 6-month anniversary of the terrorist 
attacks. I think we would all agree he used some very strong words for 
our adversaries.
  I quote President Bush:

       Every nation in our coalition must take seriously the 
     growing threat of terror on a catastrophic scale--terror 
     armed with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.

  That was his comment yesterday.
  Further, he stated:

       Some states that sponsor terror are seeking or already 
     possess weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist groups are 
     hungry for these weapons and would use them without a hint of 
     conscience.

  Further quoting him:

       In preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, 
     there is no margin for error and no chance to learn from 
     mistakes.

  Further quoting him:

       Our coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an 
     option.

  I would refer to that again: ``inaction is not an option.''
  He added:

       Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to 
     control the ultimate instruments of death.

  The President did not name names, but it is becoming increasingly 
clear that when we talk about targeting terror, we are talking about 
targeting Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
  We know he has chemical weapons because we have watched him use them 
on his own people. We know Saddam wants nuclear weapons because his 
chief bomb maker defected to the West with a wealth of information on 
their program. We know, very well, he has a missile capability because 
he fired dozens of missiles on Israel during the gulf war.
  So what has he been up to? We cannot say for sure because we have not 
had a U.N. inspector there since December of 1998. So he has had 1999, 
2000, 2001--clearly over 3\1/2\ years to continue his development of 
weapons of mass destruction. We know that for a fact. We just do not 
know what they are, and we do not know what he is going to do with 
them. One can only imagine what he has been able to accomplish during 
that timeframe.

[[Page 2899]]

  Some of you may have seen the special on CNN the other day where they 
identified clearly the threat of Iraq, and a historical review from the 
time of the Persian Gulf war: His experimentation of using chemical 
weapons on his own people; his arsenal, a portion of which was 
destroyed at that time under the U.N. auspices. Since that time we have 
just observed him as he continues to rule as a dictator, as one who 
obviously has seen fit to go to extraordinary means to ensure his own 
safety, by simply wiping out those critics of his regime.
  I am not going to try to typify this individual. I have met him. I 
have been in Baghdad. As a matter of fact, I think I am the only 
Senator who is still in the Senate who met with Saddam Hussein prior to 
the Persian Gulf war. The Senator from Idaho, Mr. McClure, was with us. 
Senator Dole was with us. Also, Senator Simpson from Wyoming was with 
us. The Senator from Ohio, Howard Metzenbaum, was with us.
  It was a very interesting opportunity. We had been in Egypt and were 
advised we should go over to visit Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We did go 
over there. We were met by our Ambassador, April Gillespie. We were 
supposed to meet Saddam Hussein at the airport in Baghdad. She said 
that she was sorry, that Saddam Hussein changed the itinerary. He was 
not there. We were supposed to go up to Mosul.
  So the Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, who is still there, said that 
Saddam had sent his airplane down to take us up to Mosul. We were 
somewhat reluctant to get in Saddam's airplane, as you might imagine. 
We said: We will take our own airplane. We had an Air Force aircraft. 
There was some discussion. Then they came back and said: No, the runway 
was under repair. Our plane was too big; they would not be able to 
accommodate our airplane. Then Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said: I am 
going with you. That made us somewhat more at ease. Somewhat 
reluctantly, we did climb into the airplane and fly up to Mosul.
  It was ironic because, when we landed, they said: we won't have to 
take you back because we have finished repairing the runway and your 
airplane can come and get you. We knew we were set up to make a story.
  We did go into a hotel and Saddam Hussein met us and was supposedly 
going to host lunch. We had a long discussion about human rights 
activities. We talked about the cannons that had been found on the 
docks in London. We discussed the triggering devices. And he had an 
answer for everything. He would throw out a booklet designed by the 
Baghdad Institute of Technology. At one point he got rather belligerent 
and suggested we had no business in his country talking to him about 
the attitude of the people of Iraq.
  He asked us to go out on the balcony. And he said: There are five of 
you, five helicopters. You can go anywhere in Iraq you want and ask 
what the people really think of Saddam Hussein. Howard Metzenbaum 
declined the invitation for reasons of security, to put it mildly. So 
did the rest of us.
  Nevertheless, we had an opportunity to observe this individual. To 
suggest he is unpredictable is an understatement. He is very 
unpredictable. His value on human life, as evident over an extended 
period of time, speaks for itself.
  One can conclude that Iraq is a very unstable area that we are 
depending on for oil. As I am sure the occupant of the chair, the 
Senator from New York, recognizes, on a particular day of September 11, 
we were importing a million barrels of oil a day from Iraq. At this 
time it is a little over 800,000 barrels a day. Interestingly enough, 
on that tragic day in September, that was a record, an 11-year-old 
record.
  What do we do with his oil? We use it to drive to work, use it in 
schoolbuses, to take our kids, whatever. It is the fuel the Navy jets 
use, which twice this year already bombed Saddam Hussein and every day 
enforces a no-fly zone over his skies. Last year Iraqis shot at U.S. 
forces some 400 times. We responded in force 125 times. I ask, can we 
count on his oil if Baghdad is the next stop in the war of terror?
  I have charts here that clearly show the increase of Iraqi oil 
production in the Mideast, and you can see 1.1 million barrels of Iraqi 
oil--this is where American families get their oil--the Persian Gulf, 
almost 3 million barrels; OPEC, 5.5 million barrels. Oil has jumped up 
to the highest price in 6 months. It is a little over $24.50 a barrel.
  Gasoline prices are at the highest they have been in 6 months. This 
is indicative of particularly the power of the OPEC cartel, which, by 
controlling the supply, clearly controls the price.
  We have other charts here that I think show a significant figure. We 
in this country have been able to do a pretty good job of conserving 
through higher efficiency. As this chart shows, consumption per 
thousand Btu has dropped from about 18 down to about 11 in the period 
of 1973 through the year 2000. That is a 42-percent decline. While 
conservation has made significant advancements, we still are 
significantly dependent on imported sources of oil for the reason that 
America and the world moves on oil.
  Here is a chart that is relatively new. It shows crude oil imports 
from Iraq to the United States in 2001. This is by month, January going 
over to September. That was an all-time high. That was at a time where 
the terrorist activities took place in Pennsylvania and Washington and 
New York.
  It is very significant to recognize that we will have to deal with 
Iraq, and the President has kind of laid down a card that suggests we 
want to have U.N. inspectors in Iraq.
  Saddam Hussein laid down his card yesterday. His card was quite 
expressive of the prevailing attitude of his regime. No, we are not 
going to let U.N. inspectors into Iraq.
  So what are we going to do? It is our move next. We waited too long 
to deal with bin Laden. We waited too long to deal with al-Qaida. So 
this is a scenario that won't be over this week or next. We cannot 
afford to wait too long to deal with Saddam Hussein. As long as he is 
in power, he will continue to threaten the world as a member of the 
axis of evil. All the tools he needs are now within his grasp.
  Reducing foreign dependence on oil can lessen the influence and reach 
of Saddam Hussein. There are solutions that must begin right here at 
home. Doing so will not only help ensure our energy security; it will 
further ensure our national security.
  Again, I make another appeal to my colleagues to recognize the role 
that Alaska could play by opening up the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. On each desk of Members, we have a series of exhibits that 
highlight the reality associated with opening up this area. It is still 
very difficult to get Members to focus on a couple of stark realities.
  I point out again the size of the area in question in the green. That 
is 1.5 million acres. That is the only area up for proposal. ANWR 
itself is a much larger area. It is a 19-million acre area consisting 
of 8 million acres of wilderness and 9.5 million acres of refuge. The 
green area is the area in question. Then the idea is what would be the 
footprint there? In the House bill, H.R. 4, the footprint is 2,000 
acres. That is a conglomeration of just a combination of drilling 
activities on land plus developing pipelines.
  It cannot go over 2,000 acres. That is pretty insignificant 
considering using an area of 1.5 million acres.
  As we look at the merits, the question is, Can we do it safely? The 
answer is, yes, because we use new technology now. We have ice roads 
and these ice roads don't require gravel. They are simply a process 
where you lay water on the tundra, it freezes, and then you can move 
the vehicles, you can move drilling rigs and so forth.
  That shows a typical drilling rig. Beyond the area up on the top you 
see the Arctic Ocean. You can see an ice road leading from the 
platform. That is the new technology. To suggest we are going to leave 
a scar on the tundra in the summertime, which is quite short--and I 
will show you a picture of the summertime, this area, which clearly is 
a result of the technology. There is a well that has been spudded in. 
You can see there are no roads to it because there was an ice road only 
during the winter.

[[Page 2900]]

  Winter is pretty long up there. It is about 10\1/2\ months a year. 
There are only about 40 days of ice-free time when the Arctic Ocean is 
open.
  Nevertheless, in spite of the facts relative to being able to open 
ANWR, America's environmental community has latched onto this, and they 
have misrepresented issue after issue. The issue they continually 
propose is that there is only a 6-month supply. We don't know what is 
in ANWR and they don't know. The range is from 5.6 billion barrels to 
16 billion barrels. If it were somewhere in the middle, it would be as 
big as Prudhoe Bay, and Prudhoe Bay has contributed 20 to 25 percent of 
the total crude oil production in the U.S. in the last 27 years.
  Those are facts. If you look over here on this chart, you will see 
the 800-mile pipeline. That infrastructure is already in place. That is 
one of the construction wonders of the world. As a consequence, it has 
been able to move this volume of oil. It is only utilized to half of 
its capacity. It is currently carrying a little over a million barrels 
a day. It can carry as many as 2 million barrels a day. So if oil is 
discovered in this magnitude, you would be putting a pipeline over from 
the ANWR area to the 800-mile pipeline down to Valdez, and it is a 
relatively simple engineering operation.
  The question is, Do we want ANWR open and do we want to avail 
ourselves of the likelihood of a major discovery? People ask, why ANWR? 
That is the area where geologists tell us is the greatest likelihood 
for the greatest discovery in the entire continent of North America. So 
to suggest it is a 6-month supply is unrealistic and misleading. If we 
didn't import and produce any oil, theoretically, it might be a 6-month 
supply. On the other hand, it is just as probable to suggest it would 
supply the Nation with 20 to 25 percent of its total crude oil for the 
next 30 or 40 years. If it comes in in the magnitude that we 
anticipate, it would offset imported oil from Iraq for 40 years and 
from Saudi Arabia for 30 years. The other issue is that it would take 
an extended timeframe to get on line. I remind colleagues that in 1995 
we passed ANWR. It was vetoed by the President. If we would have that 
on line today, we would not be as dependent on Iraq as we are 
currently. So it is a matter that will come up before the Congress as 
part of the energy bill.
  The House has done its job; it has passed H.R. 4 with ANWR in it. It 
is up to us to address this issue now. I encourage my colleagues to try 
to reflect accurate information, not misleading information that would 
detract from the knowledge that we have gained in new technology in 
opening up this area safely and protecting the caribou. There is always 
a new argument. New ones continually pop up. One is the question of the 
polar bear. Most of the polar bears are over by the area near Barrow, 
as opposed to the ANWR area. We acknowledge that there are a few in the 
ANWR area. But the point is, under the marine mammal law, you can't 
take polar bears for trophies in the United States. That has 
significantly increased the lifespan of the polar bear. If you want to 
hunt polar bear, go to Russia and Canada. You can't do it in the United 
States. These are facts that are overlooked as we look at the arguments 
against opening this area.
  The last point is, why disturb this unspoiled, pristine area? The 
fact is, this area has had the footprints of man on numerous occasions. 
It was an area where there were radar stations, an area where there is 
a Native village called Kaktovic, which has roughly 280 people. This is 
a picture of the village. This is in ANWR--physically there. There is 
an airport and radar stations. You can see the Arctic Ocean. We have 
pictures of the local community hall with kids on a snowmobile. This is 
village life in Arctic Alaska, way above the Arctic Circle. We have a 
picture showing kids going to school. These kids have dreams and 
aspirations just as our kids. They are looking for a future--jobs, 
health care, educational opportunities. They are the same as anybody 
else. Nobody shovels the snow here; nevertheless, it is a pretty hardy 
environment. To suggest that somehow this land is untouched is totally 
unrealistic and misleading.
  Speaking for these children, I think we have an obligation to 
recognize something. I have another chart that shows the Native land 
within ANWR and the injustice that is done to these people, and I think 
it deserves a little enlightenment.
  This is the map that shows the top, and there are about 92,000 acres 
in ANWR that belong to the Native people of Kaktovic. It is a smaller 
chart. We should have that chart. What we have here--and let's go back 
to the other chart that shows Alaska as a whole because I can make my 
point with that one. Within this area of the green, which is the Arctic 
Coastal Plain, up top we have the village of Kaktovic, and that little 
white spot covers the land that they own fee simple--92,000 acres. They 
have no access across Federal land, which is what ANWR is. They are 
landlocked by Federal ownership. So as a consequence, the concept of 
having fee simple land really doesn't mean very much if you can't use 
the land and have access, and so forth.
  They believe there is an injustice being done here in their Native 
land. While it is theirs, it doesn't provide them with any access--here 
is the chart I am looking for. Madam President, we have the specifics 
here. This general area that you are looking at in pink is what we call 
the 1002 area. That is a million and a half acres, where we are talking 
about providing leases. The Native area is the white area. This is the 
92,000 acres. You can see the area offshore; that is the Arctic Ocean. 
It is free of ice for only about 40 days a year.
  The problem the Native people have is access because they cannot have 
any surface access outside their 92,000 acres of land. If they wanted 
to move over to where the pipeline is, they would move west and beyond 
the area on the chart. The question is, Is it fair and equitable that 
these people are prevented from having access?
  We think there should be some provision in the ANWR proposal to allow 
the Native residents of this area to have access across public land for 
their own benefit. We intend to pursue this in some manner in this 
debate as we develop the merits of opening up ANWR. If we were to open 
it up for exploration, this would not be a question. Clearly, there is 
a lack of support by Members, based on information from the 
environmental community that this area is undisturbed and should not be 
initiated for exploration of oil and gas, even though geologists say it 
is the most likely area for a major discovery. Still we have an 
injustice and an inequity to these people. I don't think there has been 
enough attention given to the plight of these people who, as any other 
aboriginal people, are ensured certain rights under our Constitution, 
and those rights have not been granted them.
  As a consequence, there is an injustice to the people of the village 
of Kaktovic and members of the Arctic Slope Aboriginal Corporation, 
which is the governing body in that area.
  With that explanation, I encourage Members to think a little bit 
about fairness and equity and what we owe these aboriginal people. We 
certainly owe them reasonable access out of the lands they own fee 
simple.
  Madam President, nobody else is requesting recognition, so I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________