[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4561-4563]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    THE ALASKA NATURAL GAS PIPELINE

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, before the distinguished visitor 
entered the Chamber, and before the vote and the statements were made 
by the Senators from Wyoming concerning their nominee, I was discussing 
problems in relation to the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
  I think it is something on which the Senate ought to concentrate 
because we are clearly going to have to have a gas pipeline to bring to 
market the gas which was reinjected into the ground as Prudhoe Bay oil 
was produced. To bring that to market--50 to 70 trillion cubic feet of 
gas--we need a pipeline 3,000 miles long, gathering pipelines up to 
1,500 miles long.
  We are now in the position where there are only two steel mills in 
the world that are capable of delivering this steel pipe as it is 
designed.
  Before the vote, I outlined the number of jobs that we have lost in 
the steel industry and the situation with the American steel industry. 
For this gas pipeline, we need 5.2 million tons of steel. We need $3 to 
$5 billion in steel orders. We cannot get that steel unless the U.S. 
steel industry gets back on its feet.
  So for that reason, I started to think about how we could use some of 
the cashflow from the development of ANWR to start the process of the 
gas pipeline. As we examined that, we found the problem was not the 
steel industry as much as it was the rights of those who have been 
employed by the steel industry to have their medical care maintained. 
And that promise was a benefit that was agreed to many years ago for 
the contribution these workers had made to the military and civilian 
infrastructure of the country. It is, as I understand it, a potential 
lien against the steel industry as a whole.
  We need to find some way to prevent these retirees from losing their 
health care coverage so that it will not be a lien against the assets 
of the steel industry as it tries to undergo consolidation now. The 
consolidation must be done if we are going to have the steel necessary 
to build the Alaska pipeline to bring our gas down to somewhere in the 
Midwest.
  I was commencing to tell the Senate about two messages that I 
received today from a great friend whom I think is one of the most 
capable engineers in the oil and gas industry, particularly with regard 
to the pipelines and their design.
  As I said, he told me there are only two steel mills in the world 
that are currently capable of delivering this pipe. He further told me 
that the pipe will require one-half of the world's capability to 
produce the pipe during the period of this order.
  If the producers restart their work on this project this year, it 
would take until 2010 or 2011 for the gas to actually be delivered to 
our Midwest--9 years from now.
  There is over 18 months of work required to complete the design so 
that it would be possible to order the pipe. For orders placed in 2003, 
the last pipe materials would be delivered to the field in 2007. That 
would enable the gas, if everything else goes well, to start being 
delivered in 2010, as I said.
  Now, we have linked these issues together because of both the funding 
standpoint and the impact on national security and because of our 
absolute need for steel to build our gas pipeline.
  Opening up the North Slope of Alaska to the drilling in what we call 
the 1002 area will bring a cash bid in 2003 and 2005. We propose to 
make some of that money available to initiate the process of rebuilding 
the industry and taking the first steps to assure that the legacy fund 
of the steelworkers and the coal workers would be made whole.
  Madam President, many people have argued with me about this. The 
House bill put money into the conservation account. An interesting 
thing about it is, if the amendment we have is defeated, the oil 
industry will not proceed, the steel industry will not proceed, the 
natural gas pipeline will not proceed, but not one of these radical 
environmentalists will lose their health care coverage. The American 
steel retirees are going to be the ones who pay the price in the long 
run.
  I received a second message from my friend just before I came back to 
the Chamber, and that is that 30 percent of the pipeline materials will 
need to be delivered to the site by 2005, with the remainder to be 
delivered in 2007, as I said. I did not realize the steel chemistry for 
pipelines of this size has never been used. It will be what we call an 
X80-plus steel pipeline.
  If the project proceeds in the first year, some of the pipe material 
needed to be manufactured will need to be tested for weldability and 
for fracture and burst analysis to assure the material chemistry in the 
pipe is correct. The timing and cost of all of this is critical to the 
pipeline project.
  In addition to the pipeline pipe, there is a huge amount of normal 
steel materials required for compressor stations and the largest 
processing plant ever to be built.
  The Alaska natural gas pipeline should be called the ``Full 
Employment Project for 10 Years,'' maybe 15 years. It will require 
every person who is capable of working on such an endeavor in the 
United States and Canada for a period of over 8 years. It will not be 
built unless we realize the preliminaries must be completed before this 
pipeline can be built. It will bring down to what we call the South 48 
the equivalent of a million barrels of oil a day, but it will be 
natural gas--high pressure gas pipeline, 52 inches in diameter, 1-inch 
thick.
  I find it very interesting that as I talk about this subject, the 
commentators in the newspapers and whatnot say this is just a lot of 
baloney. These people are trying to link two subjects together. These 
are two subjects that have no individual answer. At the present time, 
we don't have 60 votes on the amendment to allow the drilling to 
commence in the 1002 area. We know that.
  But the steelworkers and coal miners have no other cashflow either. 
They can't look for another source of money to meet their needs for at 
least 30 years. There are over 600,000 of them, and our proposal would 
start a cashflow from this new oil brought into our market. And it is 
money that is payable for the bidding process and from royalties on 
this oil that would help the steelworkers, the coal workers, and the 
industry to reconstruct itself.
  We have been criticized about this all too often. I see my good 
friend standing here in the Chamber who might take umbrage at this. But 
during the time I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we 
provided $17 billion for American farmers for emergency purposes 
because of failures in various parts of the agricultural industry. That 
was in addition to hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent by 
the Department of Agriculture in the same period. What do you think 
that money was used for? It was used to pay for the bills on the John 
Deere tractors. It was used to pay for the farmers' health insurance. 
It was used to pay for the cost of the agricultural community to 
survive during bad times.
  These are bad times for the steel industry. There is not one bit of 
steel in my State. We have half the coal of the United States, but we 
do not have any steel. We have raised a question of trying to find an 
answer to the steel problem because of our own interest in the steel 
industry in the future. If there is no steel industry in the United 
States,

[[Page 4562]]

we will not have an Alaska natural gas pipeline for years and years.
  I see no reason why we should be afraid to marry two subjects that, 
if the supporters of each would get together, we would succeed. The 
radical environmentalists of this country have overwhelmed the 
Congress.
  In 1980, my State faced the problem of a proposal to withdraw 104 
million acres of Alaska for Alaska national interest lands. That is 
what the name of the act was, the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act. In 1978, my former colleague, Senator Gravel, had 
blocked that bill in the final minutes of that session, that Congress 
that ended in 1978.
  By the end of 1980, we were at the place where there was a bill, but 
we said we would not support it, could not support it, unless we had 
the right to explore in the 1002 area, which is known to contain the 
largest reservoir in the North American Continent. And in a compromise 
entered into in good faith between those of us who represented Alaska 
and Senators Jackson and Tsongas, we got a bill passed which authorized 
the future drilling in this area and provided an environmental impact 
statement that showed there would be no adverse impact on the area.
  Twice the Congress has passed such an amendment and twice President 
Clinton vetoed it. Now President Bush, knowing the international 
situation as it is, has said he wants this area opened to oil and gas 
exploration. We are trying to carry that load of getting the approval 
requested by the President of the United States. It is in the House 
bill, but it is not in this bill.
  I find it very hard to represent a State such as mine, a new State. I 
have been in the Senate for all but 9 years that Alaska has been a 
member of the Union. The one absolute agreement, absolute agreement 
that we worked on for 7 years was the agreement to assure that this 
area would be explored for its oil and gas potential.
  When I was in the Department of the Interior during the Eisenhower 
administration, I helped prepare the order to create the Arctic 
National Wildlife Range. At that time there was no question that range 
was created, and it was specifically stated that oil and gas 
exploration could continue in that area, subject to stipulations to 
protect the fish and wildlife.
  When we got to this bill, the so-called ANILCA bill, the Alaska 
Natural Interest Lands Conservation Act, we had the proposal to 
withdraw all of this land, and the House of Representatives, in its 
bill, closed this area to oil and gas exploration. The only basic 
change that we made in that bill, as it came out of the Senate, the 
only basic change that was absolutely demanded by the State of Alaska 
and all of us who were elected to represent the State of Alaska--both 
the State legislature, the Governor, and the three of us in the 
congressional delegation--was that area had to be available for 
exploration.
  Senator Jackson, chairman of the committee; Senator Tsongas, author 
of the substitute; agreed to amend that bill to allow for the 
exploration and development of the oil and gas potential, and those in 
the Chamber now who challenge that are leading the fight to break a 
commitment that was made to a sovereign State. It was made to us as a 
State that the area would be available for exploration if we did not 
oppose any further the proposal to withdraw 104 million acres of land 
for national purposes in our State.
  People say, why are you exercised about that? Our whole rights as a 
State were put aside until that issue was settled. The Alaskan people 
were entitled to select lands for the public land as part of our 
statehood act; the Native people were entitled to select lands in 
settlement of their claims. Over 150 million acres of Alaska to be 
selected to benefit Alaskans in the future, it all was put aside until 
those 104 million acres were set aside. The only thing we asked out of 
the 104 million acres was the right to explore this area, 1.5 million 
acres on the Arctic coast. That agreement was made.
  There are people here in the Senate who voted for it who now tell us 
they are not going to vote to allow that exploration to take place. It 
is enough to strain anybody's conscience, and my conscience is strained 
because of the fact that I agreed to that proposition. I agreed to it. 
I believed in the system. I believed that once Congress made a 
commitment in law, signed by the President of the United States, it 
would be binding even on future Senators. Apparently, it is not.
  I warn all Senators, don't trust the Senate. Don't trust a commitment 
that is made by your colleagues. Don't trust an agreement that you make 
with the Federal Government. Unless we can get this area opened, there 
is no way I will trust a future agreement that is made here in the 
Senate Chamber with regard to future activity. I will insist that 
anything that benefits my State must be done now, not dependent on 
future Congresses in order to carry it out.
  This is an unfortunate situation as far as I am concerned. I have not 
said the last.
  Let me put this back up so people will see it again.
  Madam President, this is the introduction to section 1002, the 
Jackson-Tsongas amendment, December 2, 1980. It specifically set forth 
the agreement we had made:

       The purpose of this section is to provide for a 
     comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the 
     fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of the impacts 
     of oil and gas exploration, development, and production, and 
     to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in 
     a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish 
     and wildlife and other resources.

  That is the situation. That is the Coastal Plain, 1.5 million acres, 
part of the original Arctic Wildlife Range. That has never been 
wilderness. The balance of the wildlife range is wilderness, but the 
additions of the wildlife range are not wilderness. This is a concept--
I really don't know how to deal with it other than to say this was a 
basic negotiated compromise between the State of Alaska and the people 
of the United States. We were assured that the area would be open.
  Now, that little red dot there on the chart represents the amount of 
land we have agreed we would be limited to as we go into production--
2,000 acres of a million and a half acres is what we are asking to be 
able to explore. We know where to drill now. The seismic work was 
authorized by the 1980 act and has been done. We are ready to drill 
now.
  There is oil production right outside of that ANWR area. This is the 
Prudhoe Bay area here and this is Kuparuk Field. This is essential to 
our national security. At the time of the Persian Gulf war, that Trans-
Alaska pipeline, going from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, carried 2.1 billion 
barrels of oil a day. Now it carries 950,000 a day. We make up the 
difference by importing the oil from Iraq. As we buy the oil from Iraq, 
Saddam Hussein sends $25,000 to the families of every one of the 
suicide bombers. We are paying for the terrorism that comes from Iraq 
because we continue to import oil that we could produce ourselves. We 
know there is oil there. The problem is, not only do we know there is 
oil there, but also in this big field up here, as we produce the oil, 
there is associated gas.
  There is 50 trillion to 70 trillion cubic feet of gas there that we 
want to bring down to the 48 contiguous States. This chart will show 
where it will go. There are two routes proposed. This green line is the 
route. It is traversing a corridor that will come down the Alaska 
Highway and across into Canada and then to the Chicago area. That is 
3,000 miles, and 1,500 miles of gathering pipelines in the area.
  There is no question that this gas is absolutely needed for our 
future. What is the key to that future? I am back where I started. The 
key is steel. If we don't have steel, we cannot build a pipeline. If 
the steelworkers don't get that legacy fund fixed, there will not be a 
consolidation of steel that will make a difference for us. We need the 
steel industry to come back into its own and for them to be able to 
deliver their portion of this steel. It will take half of the world's 
production for a period of 7 to 10 years to build that gas pipeline. 
That is why we are suggesting

[[Page 4563]]

that we marry up the needs of the steel industry and our needs, as the 
State that wants to pursue development of that oil in the 1002 area, 
the million and a half acres.
  I think we should do things in the national interest. I am sad to say 
that it increasingly looks as if it is not going to happen. We are 
still going to persevere and try to continue to convince people what 
would be the right and just thing to do here. But, above all, I hope 
every Senator will examine their conscience and answer the question of 
whether or not, if a commitment was made to them concerning their State 
by the United States in a law enacted by the Congress, suggested by two 
colleagues in the Senate, what would their attitude be if when the time 
came to validate that agreement, the Senate refused to do so?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________