[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4811-4849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senate will now resume 
consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding the Department of 
     Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology 
     transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in 
     the nature of a substitute.
       Kerry/McCain amendment No. 2999 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     provide for increased average fuel economy standards for 
     passenger automobiles and light trucks.
       Dayton/Grassley amendment No. 3008 (to amendment No. 2917), 
     to require that Federal agencies use ethanol-blended gasoline 
     and biodiesel-blended diesel fuel in areas in which ethanol-
     blended gasoline and biodiesel-blended diesel fuel are 
     available.
       Lott amendment No. 3028 (to amendment No. 2917), to provide 
     for the fair treatment of Presidential judicial nominees.
       Landrieu/Kyl amendment No. 3050 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     increase the transfer capability of electric energy 
     transmission systems through participant-funded investment.
       Graham amendment No. 3070 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     clarify the provisions relating to the Renewable Portfolio 
     Standard.
       Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 3093 (to amendment No. 2917), 
     to prohibit oil and gas drilling activity in Finger Lakes 
     National Forest, New York.
       Dayton amendment No. 3097 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     require additional findings for FERC approval of an electric 
     utility merger.
       Schumer amendment No. 3030 (to amendment No. 2917), to 
     strike the section establishing a renewable fuel content 
     requirement for motor vehicle fuel.
       Feinstein/Boxer amendment No. 3115 (to amendment No. 2917), 
     to modify the provision relating to the renewable content of 
     motor vehicle fuel to eliminate the required volume of 
     renewable fuel for calendar year 2004.
       Murkowski/Breaux/Stevens amendment No. 3132 (to amendment 
     No. 2917), to create jobs for Americans, to reduce dependence 
     on foreign sources of crude oil and energy, to strengthen the 
     economic self-determination of the Inupiat Eskimos, and to 
     promote national security.
       Stevens amendment No. 3133 (to amendment No. 3132), to 
     create jobs for Americans, to strengthen the United States 
     steel industry, to reduce dependence on foreign sources of 
     crude oil and energy, and to promote national security.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Mexico is recognized.


                     Amendments Nos. 3132 and 3133

  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I welcome a chance to speak about the pending 
amendments. There are two amendments that have been proposed related to 
ANWR:
  A first-degree amendment by my friend Senator Murkowski relates to 
the proposal to open ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area, to 
drilling, and the second-degree amendment by Senator Stevens proposes 
to do that but also proposes a major relief program related to the U.S. 
steel industry primarily. I will try to talk about the ANWR-related 
provisions of the bill, and particularly the energy aspects of those 
today.
  I oppose opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas 
development, and there are many reasons why. Some of those reasons 
relate to the energy security issues with which we are trying to deal. 
Some relate to environmental concerns. I am strongly committed, as I 
believe most Members of this body are, to our Nation's energy security, 
and the energy bill we have put forward tries to emphasize domestic 
energy supply and the importance of energy in national security.
  However, developing the oil and gas resources in this Coastal Plain 
of the Arctic Refuge, this area known as the 1002 area, is simply not a 
necessary component of a progressive energy policy for this country. 
The development of the Coastal Plain has been debated in this country 
and in this Congress for nearly 40 years. Experts still disagree about 
the actual reserve potential.
  In May of 1998, the Geological Survey released new estimates of oil 
in the refuge. In that analysis, the USGS's mean estimate of 
economically recoverable oil on Federal lands within the 1002 area was 
from 3.2 to 5.2 billion barrels, and that was assuming a price of $20 
to $24 per barrel using 1996 dollars. Today the United States consumes 
about 19 million barrels of oil each day, almost 7 billion barrels of 
oil each year.
  We have a chart I will put up which I think begins to make that 
point. As this chart indicates, production from the Arctic Refuge would 
not contribute significantly to solving this problem. I will make the 
point by reference to this chart.
  Domestic oil production, as shown on this chart, has been declining 
since 1970 and continues to decline today. That is this green line 
toward the bottom of the chart. Total oil demand, on the other hand, in 
the United States has been going up and is expected to continue going 
up. This chart goes from the year 1950 to the year 2020. We can see 
demand continuing to go up.
  This middle line is transportation demand, and one of the points this 
chart makes is that total oil demand is driven directly by 
transportation demand.

[[Page 4812]]

I think people can see that pretty readily. This little red line down 
in the right-hand side is domestic oil production with ANWR. So we can 
see that domestic oil production, although it continues to decline, 
would uptick. For a period starting at about 2012, we would see an 
increase in domestic production under ANWR, if ANWR was open to 
development. It does not reverse the long-term trend, which is less 
U.S. production, more imported oil, but for a relatively short period, 
considering our Nation's history, we would see an increase in domestic 
production.
  The estimate we have from the Energy Information Agency is we would 
see about a 2 to 3 percent of oil demand in a given year coming out of 
the ANWR production at the peak of that production. The Energy 
Information Agency assumes it will take 7 to 12 years before we have 
any production from ANWR.
  We had a hearing in our Energy Committee. We invited representatives 
of some of the major oil companies that have interests on the North 
Slope, and the representative from ExxonMobile was asked that very 
question: How long will it take to bring production to market if we go 
ahead and enact legislation? His estimate was 10 to 12 years. He said: 
Assuming there are no legal problems that need to be overcome, it would 
take as few as 8 years; more likely, it would take something in the 
range of 10 years.
  According to the Energy Information Agency, peak production would not 
occur for nearly 20 years after initial production. So development 
would not address the near-term prices or shortages with which people 
are faced.
  The figures the Energy Information Agency has given me indicate their 
estimate is 54 percent of the oil we consume, as of January, was 
imported oil. That is why I believe clearly we need to address the 
problem. We need to try to pass comprehensive energy legislation. As I 
said before, though, opening the Arctic Refuge is not the answer to 
this dependence on foreign oil.
  The recent report that the Energy Information Agency came out with 
has a quotation in it that I think is very important. This is on page 6 
of a report that the Energy Information Agency issued in February of 
2002. That was 2 months ago. They say:

       The increase in ANWR production would lead to a decline in 
     the U.S. dependence on foreign oil for the 2002 referenced 
     case. Net imports are projected to supply 62 percent of all 
     oil used in the United States by 2020. Opening ANWR is 
     estimated to reduce the percentage share of our imports to 60 
     percent.

  I will put this second chart up to make the point very graphically. 
What the Energy Information Agency is telling us is there will be less 
need for us to import oil if we open ANWR, and that reduced need for 
imports would come in about 2012. It would be about 2 percent. Instead 
of importing 62 percent of our oil in the year 2020, we would be 
importing 60 percent of our oil in the year 2020.
  The other thing the Energy Information Agency says, which I think is 
very instructive, if we carry their projections out--and these are all 
their projections; this is technically recoverable oil from ANWR as 
they see it--if these are carried out, by the year 2026 those two lines 
come together again and we are back in a situation where we are as 
dependent on foreign oil in the year 2027, for example, as we would 
have been absent any drilling in ANWR.
  By the year 2030, their projection is we are going to be 75-percent 
dependent upon imports for our oil if ANWR is open for drilling and we 
are going to be 75-percent dependent upon imports of foreign oil if 
ANWR is not open for drilling. So from their perspective, if we look at 
a 28- or 30-year timeframe, they see absolutely no difference in the 
extent of our dependence whether we open ANWR or we do not open ANWR.
  Another point I think is important to make is this focus on 
developing the Arctic Refuge has drawn attention away from real 
opportunities we do have to enhance our domestic energy production and 
reduce our reliance on imported oil and help us attain energy security. 
Let me mention some of these opportunities from which I think we have 
had our attention deflected.
  First is the development of the abundant gas resources on other parts 
of the North Slope that are already open for development, coupled with 
the construction of a natural gas transportation system, a pipeline to 
bring that gas from the North Slope down to the lower 48. I will speak 
some more about each of these in a moment.
  A second opportunity I think we have not given enough attention to is 
that production from the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. This is a 
highly prospective area for recent oil and gas leasing activity, and it 
is one where I think we have great potential to produce additional oil.
  A third opportunity is new production from lands already under lease 
that are not being developed. There are many such lands offshore 
Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama, and we need to give more focus to how we 
incentivize production out of those areas. Fourth is the reliance on 
other forms of energy. We have been trying to make that point 
throughout the debate on this energy bill.
  Long term, if we are going to avoid the projection on this chart, 
which is that we will be 75-percent dependent upon foreign sources of 
oil by 2030, we have to find alternative sources of energy as a 
substitute for this imported oil. That needs to be a very high priority 
for our research and development effort and for the provisions we have 
in this bill.
  I believe the most important energy issue in Alaska is not the Arctic 
Refuge--although hearing the debate one would think that was the 
central issue as to whether we did what should be done to meet our 
energy needs in the future. The most important issue is Arctic gas. The 
North Slope of Alaska contains rich supplies of natural gas. There is 
more than 32 million cubic feet of natural gas immediately available in 
existing oil fields in the Alaskan North Slope. The total natural gas 
estimates are in the area of 100 trillion cubic feet. We do not need 
new legislative authority in order to produce this gas.
  However, currently, the natural gas that is produced with oil on the 
North Slope is being reinjected because there is no transportation 
system, there is no pipeline with which to bring that gas from the 
North Slope to the lower 48. Congress dealt with the issue in 1976 when 
it enacted the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Act. Responding 
to the energy crisis of that decade, Congress called for the immediate 
construction of a gas transportation system and an expedited process 
for accomplishing that goal. Due to changed economics, due to other 
intervening factors, there have been more than two decades that have 
passed and we still do not have any pipeline. We do not have any kind 
of transportation to bring that gas to the lower 48.
  The energy bill pending in the Senate tries to address the issue. The 
House-passed bill does not try to address the issue. This bill does. We 
would increase the supply of domestically produced natural gas to U.S. 
consumers by expediting the construction of the Alaska natural gas 
pipeline. It provides for streamlined procedures for permits, for 
rights-of-way and certificates needed for the U.S. segments of the 
pipeline, as well as financial incentives to reduce the risks of the 
project.
  We have had a lot of discussion about jobs as part of this debate 
about ANWR. This natural gas pipeline I am talking about, which is 
distinct from ANWR, the natural gas pipeline creates more than 400,000 
new jobs. This is in contrast to the Congressional Research Service 
estimate of 60 to 130,000 jobs that would be created by opening the 
Arctic Refuge.
  Senator Reed, who chairs the Joint Economic Committee, released a new 
report last month estimating that opening the Arctic Refuge results in 
the creation of 65,000 jobs nationwide by 2020, an employment gain of 
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. workforce as a whole. 
Building the pipeline would not only create thousands of new jobs but 
also provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry. The project 
requires up to 3,500 miles of pipe, 5 million tons of steel. The Senate 
bill encourages the use of North American steel and union labor

[[Page 4813]]

in the construction of the pipeline. The total cost of the pipeline 
would be in the range of $15 to $20 billion. I strongly support going 
forward with that and putting whatever we can in this legislation to 
encourage its construction.
  In addition to these enormous supplies of natural gas from existing 
oilfields, there is another substantial opportunity to obtain 
additional oil and gas from the Alaska North Slope. This is the 
National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. We have a chart that shows 
something of which most Americans are not aware. The map shows a large 
area, the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA), which is the 
orange area on this chart. It is a very large area. This is the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge and includes the 1002 area. There are 23 
million acres of public land in the NPRA. It is approximately the size 
of Indiana. It was created to secure the Nation's petroleum reserves. 
It is administered by the Bureau of Land Management which, in 1999, 
offered 4 million acres in the northeast portion of the NPRA. They 
offered 4 million acres in that area for leasing. The result was very 
successful. It was a very successful lease sale. There was a high level 
of industry interest, with over $104 million in bonus bids for 133 
leases on 867,000 acres in this NPRA area.
  Exploration drilling has occurred. The industry has made major finds. 
A second lease sale is scheduled to take place in June of this year in 
another part of the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. The planning is 
also being undertaken to open additional portions of the NPRA after the 
sale that takes place in June. This is an opportunity that does not 
require any change in the law in order for drilling to go forward. As 
the map indicates, there are vast areas of Federal and State land on 
the North Slope that are already open to oil and gas leasing and 
development. The yellow portions on the chart are already under lease.
  In addition, under the current 5-year leasing plan, the State of 
Alaska plans an aggressive leasing program in the areas between the 
NPRA and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Not only do I believe these parts of the North Slope other than the 
Arctic Refuge can contribute significantly to meeting our oil and gas 
needs, there are Federal lands currently under lease elsewhere that are 
also not being produced. Let me show a chart with our Outer Continental 
Shelf off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. This chart 
shows 32 million acres in the Outer Continental Shelf that have already 
been leased by the government to oil companies for exploration and 
development that have not yet been developed. We do not need to pass a 
law in order to have drilling in those areas, either.
  In addition to my belief there are many other good opportunities to 
increase domestic oil and gas production, and I mentioned some here, I 
am particularly concerned this controversy about the Arctic Refuge 
diverts attention from an important underlying goal which we need to 
have in this bill, and that is to diversify our energy mix.
  What we are trying to do in the bill to support more research and 
development, to support development of alternative sources of energy, 
in the long run will do more to solve our national energy problems than 
what we have done so far.
  I will comment for a minute on the issue of CAFE standards because 
that has come into the debate in various ways. I will show another 
chart that shows why, in my view, we should have gone ahead and 
required higher CAFE standards for vehicles. This chart shows a blue 
line, which is net imports of oil, given current law. The green line 
indicates net imports if we open ANWR to drilling. It shows the amount 
required to be imported for a period of 20 years is reduced under that 
scenario. Then if we had net imports with CAFE, had we raised the CAFE 
standards, we would see that net imports would not only be more than 
the imports would be in the case of drilling in ANWR but they would 
stay lower. That is the advantage of it. In the case of drilling in 
ANWR, you have a relatively short-term benefit which goes away once the 
oil is used up. In the case of CAFE standards, you have a continuing 
benefit for the indefinite future.
  I do think we need to revisit that issue. I hope we can. I hope we 
can get some support from the administration to do something more 
significant.
  I received a letter--I know my colleague, Senator Murkowski, had it 
printed in the Record yesterday afternoon--from Secretary of Energy, 
Spencer Abraham, our former colleague, for whom I have great respect. 
He was citing the various things he is doing as Secretary of Energy to 
help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I gather he sent this 
letter to all Members of Congress. He said:

       I will be meeting this week with the American Automobile 
     Association--AAA--to identify ways to encourage Americans to 
     drive smarter, to prepare their cars to operate more 
     efficiently to save fuel and money.

  I am not opposed to him meeting with the AAA to encourage Americans 
to drive smarter, but that is not an adequate response to the energy 
challenges this country faces. We need to do better. This 
administration should be supporting increased CAFE standards. It should 
be supporting provisions of this bill to encourage efficiency in the 
use of energy and not just depend upon Americans to drive smarter.
  You can put a little more air in your tires. You can, perhaps, get 
your car tuned up. But the truth is, if the car is manufactured to run 
at 12 or 14 miles per gallon--14 miles for each gallon that you buy--
you cannot do a whole lot to solve that problem.
  I know there are others who want to speak. There will be 
opportunities later for me to add to my comments. Let me conclude by 
saying that opening the Arctic Refuge is not, in my view, good 
environmental policy. More importantly, it is far from necessary as 
part of a national energy policy. Oil and gas development on the 
Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does little for 
our Nation's energy security. If you take the long-term view, which is 
2030, it does nothing to deal with our energy security needs.
  It is a diversion from the efforts we should be taking as a country 
to address the important subject of energy, a subject that is crucial 
to our economy, to our way of life and our future. I urge my colleagues 
to join me in the effort to oppose opening this area for drilling.
  I believe Senator Breaux was expecting to speak at this time in favor 
of one or both of the amendments, so I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow the distinguished 
chairman of the Energy Committee. Although we differ on the conclusion, 
I certainly have the utmost respect for the good work he has done in 
bringing this bill to the floor, along with the Senator from Alaska, 
Mr. Murkowski, in an effort to try to develop something we do not have 
in this country and that we desperately need, and that is an energy 
policy that is good for America.
  The energy policy we have--or probably do not have--is probably good 
for OPEC but it is not good for America. Why do I say it is good for 
OPEC? Because the facts are that we import about 57 to 58 percent of 
the oil we use in this country. It comes not from America, not from 
allies in Canada, or good friends in Mexico, but about 58 percent of 
the oil and gas we use in this country for everything we need, from 
agriculture to cars and trucks to our residences being heated in the 
winter and cooled in the summer--that 58 percent of the oil and gas we 
need for all those services which are critically important to the 
United States and every citizen of this country does not come from 
America. It comes from countries where, if people in this country did 
what they did in their country, they would go to the penitentiary.
  What am I talking about? Every few weeks people in OPEC, the sheiks 
and the people who control the energy in those countries, meet in fancy 
resort hotels around the world, they meet in secret, and they determine 
how much they are going to price the oil that America has to buy. They 
regularly and openly fix prices. If companies that are providers in 
this country did that

[[Page 4814]]

in America, they would go to the penitentiary. That is clear. It is 
illegal. Yet we as a nation have accepted that policy on the part of 
the principal supplier of oil for our country.
  We do not control our destiny; we do not control our future, as long 
as we rely on people who fix prices to provide this country with the 
ingredients we need to be a strong and secure and prosperous nation. 
That has to come to an end.
  It is not going to be easy. There is not one answer. There is a 
multitude of answers which we have to incorporate in an energy bill 
which is balanced, which provides help and assistance for new forms of 
energy, for alternate forms of energy.
  I voted for $6 billion worth of tax incentives for new forms of 
energy. Many people in Louisiana think it is ludicrous that I am doing 
that. When I talk about wind power and chicken manure being converted 
into energy, people in my State say: What are you doing? Why don't you 
try to encourage oil and gas production? I say: Yes, that is important, 
but alternative sources of energy are also important.
  The point I make about where we get our energy supplies is just this 
simple. If we were dependent for, say--think about it--58 percent of 
the food we eat in this country, suppose it came from a foreign source 
which was not very dependable. People would be marching in the streets 
in Washington, saying you have to stop that policy. It is insane. We 
can't depend on foreign countries for our food. It is essential to our 
national security. You cannot allow a policy which gets agricultural 
products from countries on which we cannot depend. People would march 
in the streets--and rightfully so.
  That is exactly what we do when it comes to energy. We are satisfied. 
We are fat, we are happy, until they turn the faucet off just a little 
bit. It happened in 1973 and it brought this country to our knees. We 
had long lines at filling stations. We had lack of supplies. We had 
people getting in fights trying to buy gasoline so they could take 
their children to the doctor and to school and run commerce in this 
country. We saw what they could do. At that time we were probably 30-
percent dependent on imported oil. Today it is about 58 percent. We 
look around the world and the circumstances today are much worse than 
they were in the 1970s.
  There has been an attempted coup in Venezuela, which is one of our 
largest suppliers. The President of that country is in bed with Castro 
and Libya and Iraq, and we are dependent on them for much of the energy 
supply in America. Purchase of it comes from Louisiana where we refine 
it in Lake Charles. Is that a secure source? Of course not. They just 
had a revolution. The guy they kicked out is back. He is not 
particularly a friend of the United States when he is giving oil to 
Cuba at discounted prices and threatens to cut it off to us at any 
moment.
  Getting oil from Iraq, is that a stable source? The Middle East 
situation today is as volatile as it has been in generations.
  So the point I would make to start this discussion is we, in these 
United States, have to be more reasonable, more balanced in how we 
approach the solution. There is no absolute, safe method of achieving 
energy independence that doesn't have some risk. Let's admit that up 
front. That is, of course, true.
  But we have a policy in this country when it comes to oil and gas. 
Think about it. You could not drill offshore anywhere on the east 
coast, from Maine to Key West. It is all locked in--or, rather, locked 
out from any development, although there are potential reserves in 
those areas that are substantial.
  If you look on the west coast of this country, you can go all the way 
from Washington State down the west coast, all the way down to Mexico 
and you cannot have any new leasing in any of those areas whatsoever. 
We did that because Republican administrations and Democratic 
administrations, Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, have 
taken all those areas and said: Don't do it here. Not in my backyard. 
The problem is the backyard is the entire west coast of the United 
States. Don't do it in my backyard on the east coast. The problem is it 
is the entire east coast of America.
  Some have said, and some of the environmental groups have said, ``Do 
it off Louisiana,'' as if we were not important from their perspective, 
and as if we didn't have some of the most valuable resources in terms 
of wetlands, fin fish, birds, oysters, shrimp, and all of the fur-
bearing animals that we have in the very fragile wetlands where we lose 
25 square miles a year because of erosion. But they are saying: Do it 
there. We are doing it there. We will continue to do it there because 
we believe this is a national issue and we should make our contribution 
towards energy security. We have done it for 60 years off our coast and 
on our shores. There have been mistakes. There have been problems, but 
we have learned from those mistakes. And today it is much more secure 
than bringing oil in rusty-bucket ships that leak and spill oil on the 
oceans of this country. Less than 2 percent of the oil that finds its 
way into the oceans of America and the world come from offshore 
development. Most of it comes in tanker discharge, industrial runoff, 
and other sources, and natural seepage, but not from offshore 
production activities--less than 2 percent, according to the National 
Academy of Sciences. I think we have shown it can be done safely and in 
a fashion that protects the environment.
  There is no place I would rather fish in America than the Gulf of 
Mexico. We have literally hundreds and hundreds of platforms that have 
wells, exploration wells, and production wells that produce natural gas 
and oil for the rest of this country. We have a pipeline system that 
takes natural gas and sends it to Chicago, New York, New England, or to 
the west coast, and all over this country, coming from one particular 
source in the gulf where there is a 60-year record of it being done 
safely. Despite that, when we tried to have additional leasing in the 
gulf, Congress tried to stop that even.
  President Clinton, to his credit, proposed a compromise called lease 
sale 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. To my regret, the Bush administration 
cut that by two-thirds. It was a proposed lease sale that was two-
thirds less than President Clinton had proposed in the Gulf of Mexico. 
And this Congress tried to eliminate it completely because they did not 
want it in their backyard.
  From where is it going to come? From where is it going to come, if 
not from a domestic source right here in this country where we have 
shown we can do it safely, in a secure fashion, and in an 
environmentally sensitive fashion? I think there are many parts of the 
country that are doing their share.
  The concept that because it is a wildlife refuge and somehow we are 
not supposed to be able to do anything on it other than look at caribou 
is ridiculous. Here are the wildlife management and wetland management 
districts around the country where we have production already. There 
are 9 facilities in Texas and 12 in Louisiana. Every single wildlife 
refuge in Louisiana--which has some of the best in the world, the best 
in the country, and which has more wildlife features and more fragile 
ecology than the North Slope--12 separate production facilities on 
wildlife refuges, one of them owned by the Audubon Society, which has 
production on their own refuge from which they get royalties, strongly 
support it, but nowhere else.
  I think it has been shown that, in fact, you can have production, if 
it is done properly and in a sensitive fashion--and in wildlife 
refuges, as well as in areas that are not. It can be done. It has been 
done and it has been done safely.
  This is an example of the type of facility in Louisiana. Look at how 
small of a print that is. In Alaska, there are 19 million acres in 
ANWR. When we are talking about reserving a portion of that 19 million 
acres, which is less than the size of Dulles Airport, to do one type of 
operation, of course, it makes an imprint. Is it huge? Of course not. 
Is it dangerous? Of course not. Can it be done safely? The answer is 
yes. History has shown us that it can be done in an environmentally 
safe fashion. We

[[Page 4815]]

would not need that, if we were not importing 58 percent of our oil 
from countries that are not safe and not reliable.
  If we had enough energy production from other sources, then we would 
not need to do it in the wetlands because we would have more than we 
needed right here in this country. But that is not the case when we are 
importing 58 percent from places that fix prices and which have us 
literally over a barrel when it comes to having enough energy to run 
the cars, to run industry, and agricultural entities in this country. 
We can't afford not to look at developing it here in this country. That 
is the point I would make.
  There are some who say we will have a problem with the caribou up 
there. Caribou aren't endangered. They are like a bunch of cows. There 
are more of them now than there were years before. In addition to that, 
we are not damaging the lifestyle of caribou by having some energy 
development in the same area they happen to be walking through once or 
twice a year.
  Some say: You can't do anything up there because of the caribou. They 
have nice pictures of caribou. They say: Don't do anything to damage 
the caribou. The caribou are more plentiful in that part of the country 
than they were in Prudhoe Bay. They are doing quite well, thank you 
very much.
  For those who said, ``Well, you are going to interfere with their 
lifestyle,'' look at this photograph. These are not dummies that 
somebody put out on the North Slope. The Senator from Alaska knows that 
area quite well. It is his State. These are living, breathing, 
multiplying caribou within a stone's throw of a production facility in 
Alaska. Does this look like the caribou lifestyle is being interfered 
with? Does it look as if they are not happy and content, grazing near 
the pipeline and production facility?
  Some will make the argument you can't do it because the caribou walk 
across this area twice a year, they might calve, and it might disrupt 
their lifestyle.
  Importing 58 percent of our energy is disrupting the lifestyle of 
Americans, and it is threatening the security of the United States.
  We don't want to get into another Afghanistan or have the Middle East 
shut off the oil supply to this country or ask how we are going to 
defend ourselves and be protectors of the world when we are buying oil 
from people who have turned against us because of conflicts with 
Islamic portions of this world.
  We have to be secure. We have to be confident that we can depend on 
energy. We ought to do whatever is necessary to produce it in this 
country instead of bending over on our knees saying, please, OPEC, 
don't disrupt our energy supplies; please, OPEC, don't charge us too 
much; please, please, please.
  You can't say that when you don't have someone to back it up. What 
are we going to do? Threaten not to buy their oil? We do not have that 
luxury because we are not doing enough to produce energy right here in 
America.
  For those people who say, ``Don't drill in ANWR,'' get off the 
caribou argument. They made that argument about the Prudhoe Bay 
pipeline; it was going to kill all of the caribou; they will move 
somewhere else; they weren't going to have calves. That has not proven 
to be correct by one iota. The caribou are there and they are thriving. 
That simply, in my opinion, is not a legitimate argument as to what we 
should be looking at. We should be looking at it from the standpoint of 
safety and making sure it has the utmost of environmental equipment 
that is needed to make sure it can be done safely. I would suggest that 
it doesn't matter how we protect it. It is a lot safer than importing 
energy that we are bringing in by tankers from around the world.
  Some have said that in order to get this measure passed we have to 
sweeten the pot for some of the steelworkers who lost their jobs. I am 
not for that. That is not what the issue should be.
  Some have said maybe our friends in the Middle East and the Israelis 
will help and maybe we can get enough votes to pass this measure. It 
should pass on its own.
  I would vote for trying to get something good from the standpoint of 
energy security. It should pass or fail on its own merits. We ought to 
be able to look and decide whether it is a good idea.
  When I was back in the House in the 1970s, we wrote the Alaska Lands 
Act. We looked at this area. We set aside the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge with 19 million acres with the clear thought that we ought to 
take a small portion of it and look to see whether we could possibly do 
more for energy. The USGS tells us that it equals a 30-year supply of 
oil coming from Saudi Arabia.
  Some say there isn't much up there. We will not know until we take a 
look. The USGS tells us that it is potentially a 30-year supply--the 
equivalent of what we get from Saudi Arabia. That is not insignificant. 
That is a huge amount. Some say it is a 1-day supply. It is 1 day if we 
cut off all other sources. If you look at it from the standpoint of 
potentially how much is there, a 30-year potential is very significant 
considering what we get from Saudi Arabia.
  We may not get this thing done. We may continue to say: Don't do it 
in my backyard; don't do it on the east coast, don't do it on the west 
coast, don't do it in the Gulf of Mexico, don't do it--don't, don't.
  But my point is simply this: If not there, where? For somebody who 
thinks it is better to import it from the Middle East rather than 
produce it in our country with our own people running the program and 
with our environmental laws in effect, I suggest that is not a good 
tradeoff.
  This amendment should pass. We should go about the business of 
bringing energy security to this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BREAUX. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Senator from Louisiana: Some people have 
suggested that the better answer is, rather than opening ANWR to 
drilling, we should simply concentrate on the Gulf of Mexico and put up 
every possible lease sale. I think that lease sales are already taking 
place in 2,000 to 3,000 feet of water. And the industry has had a very 
successful effort in producing there. It requires a great deal of 
technology.
  But I wonder if the Senator from Louisiana believes this is a better 
solution than exploration in other areas of the country, where States 
such as Louisiana or Alaska want the development to occur?
  Mr. BREAUX. From a selfish standpoint, I could say: Don't do it 
anywhere else. Just do it in Louisiana. It creates jobs. It creates 
income. And it creates infrastructure. We are happy to support that 
activity. If I looked at it from only a parochial standpoint, I would 
say: Only do it in the Gulf of Mexico. Don't do it anywhere else. But 
that is not in the best interest of the country.
  You have to do it in the gulf, but you have to do it in other places 
where oil may be present. One of the most promising and potentially the 
largest supplies, other than the Gulf of Mexico, is, in fact, the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  So if you look at it as national policy, it is not enough that 
Louisiana and Texas do it. Other States have to be involved; and ANWR 
is one of those sites. We cannot keep saying ``don't do it here'' and 
``don't do it there'' and ``don't, don't, don't.'' The fact is, we 
ought to do it where we can find available energy. I would say ANWR is 
one of those.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator would show us that particular 
chart because I think it depicts the statement that has been made 
continually: ``Well, not in my backyard.''
  Mr. BREAUX. That is it. It is easy to say: Don't do it in my own 
backyard. I want to be with environmentalists. And that is fine, but at 
some point you have to say: We have to have a balanced program.
  I talked to some environmentalists about ANWR, and I said: I tell you 
what, what if we limit it to 1 acre? Would you be satisfied if we only 
did it

[[Page 4816]]

on 1 acre in Alaska? The answer was: No. The fact is, they don't want 
to do it on 1 acre or 20 acres. They just don't want to do it because 
it becomes a symbol of what they stand for. And I understand that.
  But we are in a crisis in this country. I am saying you have to have 
a balanced approach. This is what has occurred around natural gas, the 
cleanest burning fuel, the least threatening in this country. People 
don't like nuclear because it is dangerous. Natural gas is dangerous. 
They don't like coal because it is dirty. Natural gas is the cleanest 
fuel we have.
  Look at what has happened. As I show you this on the map I have in 
the Chamber, this area is subject to no restrictions. You cannot drill 
for potentially 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the west coast 
because it is all blocked off. There are 31 trillion cubic feet of 
potential natural gas reserves on the east coast. You cannot drill a 
well anywhere there.
  There is lease sale 181, which we just fought in this Congress, where 
people want to say: Don't do anything here. There are 24 trillion cubic 
feet of potential natural gas reserves, and Florida is importing over 
90 percent of the gas they use from other sources. They do not produce 
but a trickle of their gas in Florida. They import over 90 percent, and 
they say: Don't do it off my pretty beaches. Don't do it off my 
million-dollar houses. Go do it somewhere else. There isn't anyplace 
else.
  The only place we are doing it is shown here on the map. So look at 
the interior of the country. We have more places where you can't look 
for oil and gas than you have where oil and gas potential exists.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Would my friend from Louisiana yield for a question?
  Mr. BREAUX. Sure.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I don't want to argue with the Senator's basic point. I 
am in general agreement with him, that we ought to be drilling some 
places where we are not drilling today. But the chart the Senator has 
seems to indicate you are not drilling in northwestern Mexico. That is 
one of the largest gasfields in this country, the San Juan Basin. We 
are drilling at an amazing rate up there. I support the drilling that 
goes on there, by and large.
  I do not know about all the rest of the Rocky Mountain region, if 
that map is intending to indicate you cannot drill in it. But an awful 
lot of our State is being drilled in, and appropriately so.
  Mr. BREAUX. I just say, referring to the map, the access restrictions 
I am talking about on the coast clearly are a total prohibition. And 
this is a total prohibition. This has restrictions on access to those 
areas. For some of these areas, it should be.
  But what we are talking about today is not access restrictions to 
ANWR; we are talking about a total prohibition on ANWR. That is not 
access restrictions. That is a lot further.
  If we want to pass a bill that says we are going to carefully 
coordinate how you can get into that area, how you can exit that area, 
what you can do in that area, that is one thing; but the legislation we 
have in the current law of this country is: no access. That is not 
access restrictions; that is totally no access to areas that have 
potentially huge amounts of energy.
  Again, I would say, don't do ANWR if we don't need it. But anytime 
this country is importing 58 percent of our energy, I would suggest we 
need it. Are we importing 58 percent of our energy because we like to 
do that? Of course not. We are over a barrel paying OPEC prices, which 
they fix every 6 weeks.
  I think, if we are going to have a national energy policy, everybody 
has to come to the table, not just half of the equation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin, if I may, by first of all 
saying it is my intention to answer each and every one of the 
assertions just made by the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from 
Alaska. There is ample proof that those of us who oppose drilling in 
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge are strongly in favor of drilling in many 
other parts of this country and are strongly in favor of a policy which 
keeps the United States on the cutting edge of energy production.
  In a few moments I will show how we are producing extraordinary 
amounts of natural gas, almost all the coal we consume, huge amounts of 
oil and other sources of energy, and, in fact, we are building new 
powerplants all across this country.
  None of us are standing here with our head in the sand arguing that 
we should not continue to produce energy. Moreover, I think the 
arguments made underscore the fundamental difference in the approach by 
those of us who believe there is a different energy future for the 
United States that does not require us to do injury to something we 
have set aside for a purpose.
  Beginning with a Republican President, and going through a series of 
Presidents over the last 25, 30 years, there has been an honoring of an 
ethic in the United States that suggests that the concept of a preserve 
should be exactly that.
  My colleague, a moment ago, said: What would happen if we said, drill 
in only 1 acre? Well, everyone understands that if you begin with 1 
acre, it does not stay at 1 acre. It will progress. The first acre is 
the violation of the notion of set-aside. The first acre is the 
violation of the concept of pristineness. The first acre is the 
destruction of the concept of an arctic wildlife refuge that is absent 
any kind of industrialization.
  My arguments against drilling in ANWR are not based on the caribou. 
That was a wonderful picture, a great discussion of caribou, but that 
is not the principal argument here. It is interesting, however--and I 
will show, a little later, that our own Fish & Wildlife Service--I have 
heard my colleagues referring to radical environmental groups. The 
people who are cautioned against this are the administration's own 
functionaries who worked on this for years. The Fish & Wildlife Service 
finds there would be problems with respect to the ecosystem. The U.S. 
Geologic Survey has serious questions with almost all of the numbers 
that have been put forward by the proponents.
  So I begin at the beginning. I want to try to lay a record out here 
that I think is clear and, I hope, understandable and, I hope, in the 
end, compelling about why it is inappropriate to drill in the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge. But I do want to say, the two visions are different 
visions of the energy future of our country.
  I honor what the Senator from Louisiana said. He is a strong advocate 
for his State. He is a terrific Senator. And he is right, we do need to 
do more drilling. I am in favor of more drilling. We should do more 
drilling in the deep water Gulf of Mexico, which Lord John Brown, the 
CEO, chairman of British Petroleum, says is the most significant 
oilfield unexploited in the world, which is where at least British 
Petroleum would like to put its energy, its efforts, not in ANWR.
  But let's begin at the beginning.
  Our colleagues have come to the floor and suggested to our fellow 
Senators that this is the first time in history that a ``national 
security'' issue has been filibustered.
  First of all, one could make a serious argument about the degree to 
which this is, in fact, a national security issue. But I will accept 
the question of how much oil we import. The question of American 
dependency on oil is legitimately a concern of the United States. But 
it is not addressed by drilling in ANWR, No. 1, and, No. 2, the record 
shows clearly that this is not the first time such an issue has been 
filibustered.
  If ANWR is important to the energy national security of the United 
States because it would affect how much oil might be available or how 
much oil we are importing, then CAFE standards are equally a national 
security issue for our country. In fact, CAFE standards are a far 
better response to national security because even the oil companies 
will tell us they can't produce oil from ANWR for anywhere from 7 to 10 
years.
  When my colleagues come to the floor of the Senate and suggest to us

[[Page 4817]]

that the crisis in the Middle East is a reason to drill in ANWR, that 
is a misleading argument because no oil will flow from ANWR, given the 
permitting, lawsuit, developmental processes, as I will show later, 
until from 7 to 10 years from now. And you don't even get to the peak 
production until somewhere, perhaps, around 2020.
  That said, if you put CAFE standards in place, you would have a much 
faster response to the oil. You would get 1 million barrels saved in a 
decade, and that would grow exponentially. In ANWR, as you drill, you 
lose the oil. You reach a point of peak production, and then it starts 
to go down. But if you put CAFE standards in place, it grows and grows 
through the years. So in fact, CAFE standards result in three times the 
savings of ANWR.
  I don't want to get into a CAFE standards argument. That is not why I 
am here. But CAFE standards is as much a national security issue for 
the United States as the question of whether or not we drill in ANWR. I 
will show later how ANWR doesn't even affect the total amount of oil on 
which we are dependent except for this tiny little sliver that is 
barely discernable on a graph.
  The point is, our colleagues have suggested this is the first time. I 
want to say this because the accuracy that disappears in this process 
is very important. The fact is, in the 101st Congress, second session--
I was a member of that Senate; I remember the vote--we had a motion to 
invoke cloture on the Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act. It failed. In 
other words, it was filibustered. It was filibustered, and 42 Senators 
managed to prevent us from passing the effort by Senator Richard Bryant 
of Nevada to have CAFE standards, which is a national security issue.
  Among those Senators who voted to continue the filibuster and not 
allow us to put CAFE standards in place were both Senators from Alaska 
and the Senator from Texas, who have asserted that we must allow a 
straight vote on ANWR. Let's dispense with the national security 
argument, and there is further reason to dispense with it because of 
the amount of oil we have in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
  I want to show this chart. This is the world supply of oil production 
versus the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. If the Presiding Officer is having 
trouble seeing ANWR, that is because here it is. It is this yellow line 
at the very bottom of the chart versus all the oil production of the 
world.
  The United States of America only has 3 percent of the oil reserves 
of the world, including ANWR, including the Gulf of Mexico, our 
national monuments, all of our oil. Every single year, the United 
States of America uses 25 percent of the world's oil. I don't know any 
child in school who can't quickly figure out that if we only own 3 
percent but we use 25 percent of the world's production, we have a 
problem.
  We have a serious problem.
  You can't drill your way out of this problem. If you drill all the 
oil in ANWR, you still face a fundamental issue which is the United 
States of America is overly dependent on foreign oil and is growing 
more and more so.
  In 1973, when we first met the cartel's oil crisis, we had a 
dependency on foreign oil of about 35 percent. Yet we responded, 
supposedly, with CAFE standards, with more production. Today, we are 
about 55 or 56 percent dependent on the rest of the world. And in the 
next few years, we will grow to 60 percent. Does anybody in their right 
mind believe if we depend today on foreign oil for 60 percent of our 
oil, that ANWR, which is only a fraction of the 3 percent that we 
possess, somehow has the ability to make a difference to the United 
States? The answer is no. No, you can't. You just can't squeeze that 
enough.
  So there are two competing visions here: A vision of the status quo, 
a vision that is similar to the one that is reflected in a willingness 
to avoid doing anything about global warming, even though every 
scientist says global warming is a problem; a willingness to ignore the 
need to be involved in the realities of science versus our desire just 
to go along the way it is and not upset the equilibrium in any way 
whatsoever.
  The fact is that about 70 percent of America's oil use goes to 
transportation. When I hear my colleagues talk about our terrible 
dependency on the Middle East for oil, ANWR doesn't end the terrible 
dependency on the Middle East for oil. I just heard the Senator from 
Louisiana say: Gosh, it would be great if we could vote in a way that 
we are not the hostages of Middle Eastern countries that can cut off 
our oil.
  Well, yes, it would be great. But voting for the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge doesn't do that. It leaves you still 60-percent dependent on 
foreign oil. And any cartel, any terrorist, any country that wants to 
hold the United States hostage will hold us hostage until we liberate 
ourselves from our oil gluttony, dependency, whatever you want to call 
it.
  Those two visions are the vision of the status quo over here, and a 
vision over here of those who believe there is a different energy 
future for the United States.
  I quickly say as an outline, my sense of that energy future for the 
United States begins with four important principles. Those principles 
speak directly to what the Senator from Louisiana just said about 
whether we are willing to drill.
  No. 1, absent an exhaustion of remedies and a life-threatening threat 
to the United States, absent that, the United States should do nothing 
that doesn't make economic sense. Principle No. 1: It makes economic 
sense to do what we choose to do absent some life-threatening challenge 
that is coming down the road.
  Principle No. 2: We should commit ourselves again, given the same 
caveat, absent a threat that we have just got to respond to, we should 
commit ourselves that the choices we make do not diminish the quality 
of life of any American at all. So it makes economic sense. We don't 
diminish the quality of life. We can make those choices now.
  Principle No. 3: All of us who are opposed to the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge must have the courage to stand up and say we are going to be 
dependent on oil still for 30 to 50 years or more in this country. It 
will take that long to make the energy transition, to make the 
transportation transition. And what we must do is put in place a set of 
policies that begin to accelerate our capacity in an economically 
viable way to begin to make that transition to this new energy future.
  That is alternatives and renewables and the hydrogen fuel cell and 
hybrid cars and a host of other things.
  I don't know why my colleagues are so pessimistic about America's 
capacity to meet a challenge through the skill and creativity of our 
entrepreneurs.
  When we put our entrepreneurial skill and energy to work in the 
United States of America, there is nothing we can't do. We have proven 
it--when we went to space. We proved it in the Manhattan Project when 
we needed to create a response to the terror of the Axis Powers and win 
World War II. We have proven it time and again.
  I believe that just as President Kennedy put a challenge to the 
country saying we are going to go to the Moon in 10 years--not knowing, 
incidentally, if we could in fact get there, not knowing if it was in 
fact achievable, but telling America that the reason we are going to do 
this is because it is difficult. And we did it.
  In 1990, when everybody said, oh, it is going to cost $8 billion to 
reduce the amount of sulfur in our air as part of the Clean Air Act and 
we cannot do it in that time period, what happened, Mr. President? We 
did it faster than we ever thought we would or could, and we did it for 
a cost not of $8 billion, or for $4 billion, which the environmental 
people thought it would cost; we did it for $2 billion, and we did it 
faster.
  The reason we did that was that no one was able to factor in the 
exponential benefits of technology, the rate at which one technological 
discovery spurned the next technological discovery. The way, in fact, 
that the serious commitment of the United States could do it invited 
private capital markets to make the decision that, hey, that is worth 
the investment. It is the old field of dreams: Build it, and they

[[Page 4818]]

will come. We decided we were going to build it, and they came, and we 
did it faster.
  My colleagues are very pessimistic about the ability of the United 
States to bring online all of these other capacities to do these things 
more efficiently, cleanly, and effectively, and we can create tens of 
thousands, millions of jobs in this country, putting people to work in 
production for other parts of the world that also have the same demands 
and needs.
  Again, I repeat, we cannot drill our way out of America's energy 
challenge. We have to invent our way out of this challenge. We should 
begin now to encourage the greatest laboratories, our universities, our 
venture capitalists, the private sector, in the strongest way possible 
to begin to move us to this new energy future where America is not 
dependent upon these other countries.
  I am particularly sensitive when I hear my colleague say we don't 
want our young men and women sent off to these countries and put at 
risk. Let me tell you, I think one of the things I have fought for as 
hard as anything in the Senate is common sense about how we wage our 
wars and where and when we put people at risk.
  Mr. President, this is a false promise to America. The sons and 
daughters of America are more at risk every day that we remain 
prisoners of this equation where more than 45 percent of the world's 
oil supply is in Saudi Arabia. There is nothing we can do about that. 
We don't have as much. No matter what we try to do, we won't be able to 
repeat it. Moreover, the amount of oil in ANWR will not affect the 
price of oil globally at all. It doesn't create the kind of 
independence we want.
  This is a statement of Lee Raymond, chairman and chief executive 
officer of ExxonMobil Corporation. He is in the oil industry. He knows 
what he is talking about:

       The idea that this country can ever again be energy 
     independent is outmoded and probably was even in the era of 
     Richard Nixon. The point is that no industry in the world is 
     more globalized than our industry.

  That is a chief executive of an oil company.
  Whether or not we do ANWR with respect to price is also critical. The 
first President Bush said:

       Popular opinion aside, our vulnerability to price shocks is 
     not determined by how much oil we import. Our vulnerability 
     is more directly linked to how oil dependent our economy is.

  President Bush is correct. Nothing about drilling in the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge fundamentally alters the dependency of the United 
States. No one in the industry will suggest that, even at its best 
amount of oil, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge makes anything but a few tiny 
percentage points, in the low single digits, of difference on a 60-
percent dependency on foreign oil.
  Even if you drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, you cannot affect 
the energy price. Alaska Governor Tony Knowles said:

       Evidence overwhelmingly rejects the notion of any 
     relationship between Alaska North Slope crude and West Coast 
     gasoline prices.

  Great Britain is entirely energy independent, fuel independent. They 
have their own North Sea oil. But Great Britain, despite the fact that 
it has a 100-percent capacity to supply its oil, is subject to the same 
price increases and the same price shocks as other countries in the 
world. ANWR, with its tiny little percentage, is not going to affect 
that.
  Let me deal with another issue if I may. I have enormous respect for 
Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens. They are friends. They have been 
my colleagues a long time, and they are fighting a fight in which they 
believe. They particularly believe in it for their State. I think every 
one of us in the Senate accepts responsibility for helping States that 
have difficulties making up revenue differences. That is why we have a 
Federal system in this country. We help farm country for different 
things at different times. I am certainly always prepared to try to be 
of assistance to the State of Alaska in ways that it needs it.
  One of the Senators, or both, has spoken about Senator Tsongas a 
number of years ago. None of us could comment on what was or was not 
said between Senators. I accept what Senator Stevens says. All I know 
is that Senator Tsongas was asked point blank in 1992:

       Do you believe that the Alaska refuge should be opened to 
     drilling in 1992?

  Here is what the Senator said:

       Absolutely not. I believe we should prevent exploitation 
     and devastation of this national treasure. To address our 
     energy needs, we should promote maximizing energy efficiency, 
     renewable resources, and our plentiful natural gas reserves.

  Once again, I cannot go back in history to a time when I wasn't here. 
But I do know that Paul Tsongas, as late as 1992, was opposed to 
drilling and certainly had no sense of any commitment he had made at 
that point in time in that regard.
  In this debate, as I mentioned a moment ago, I want to deal with the 
question of production. The Senator from Louisiana asked: What are we 
going to do? Where are we going to produce our energy? He asked 
legitimate questions, such as: If we are not going to do it here, how 
do we do it there, and so forth.
  Let me clarify this for the record. The proponents of drilling in the 
Arctic Refuge want to cast those of us who don't want to do it as 
somehow anti-energy production. As I have just described, I have a 
vision--and I think others share it--of huge energy production for the 
United States of America. We cannot grow our economy if we don't grow 
our energy production. We want to grow our economy, and we want the 
jobs that come with it. We need the strength for our Nation. Of course, 
we have to expand our energy production. Here is where these debates 
always somehow get dragged down, because people want to go to the 
places--I don't know, for sort of a debate advantage or political 
advantage but not where the truth is.
  This debate is not about whether or not we need to expand our energy. 
This debate is over how we expand our energy. How do we do it? Do we do 
it in ways that we know violate the air, leave toxic waste sites, tear 
apart the health of our fellow citizens, that pour particulates into 
the air so we have more emphysema, more lung disease, more cancer or do 
we try to use the ingenuity God gave us to go find the cleaner, more 
thoughtful technologies that make a difference in the long-term future 
of our country and indeed the planet?
  That is the choice. Once again, I say there are those who want the 
status quo where they think all we do is drill oil, and there are those 
who believe there is a different energy future for the country.
  Let me point out, America produces almost all the coal that we 
consume, and the tax package that is in this energy bill, if we pass 
it, promotes clean coal--clean coal.
  America produces about 85 percent of the natural gas that we consume, 
and this energy bill includes a provision to federally subsidize the 
construction of the massive gas pipeline to carry the estimated 35 
trillion cubic feet of natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska to 
the lower 48 States.
  Those who argue that we are coming to this energy unconscious ignore 
the fact that in this very bill, there is a provision to build a 
pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 States so we can burn clean energy 
in an intelligent way.
  We hear that those of us opposing the development of ANWR are even 
against electricity production. Wrong again. In New England alone we 
have built 12 new powerplants in the past 2 years. We have put more 
than 3,500 megawatts online, another 12 new powerplants are under 
construction and will come online in the next 2 years, putting an 
additional 6,300 megawatts online. There has been no opposition to 
these projects.
  We produce a significant amount of oil in America. We do not produce 
all we consume, as I have just described, and that will never happen 
without some extraordinary introduction of efficiencies and 
alternatives. I have explained why, and I do not have to go back over 
that, but we remain one of the largest oil producers in the world 
today. I say this because given the debate in this Chamber, Americans 
might

[[Page 4819]]

believe the only oil in the Nation is somehow underneath the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge and we are preventing the only oil in the Nation from 
being drilled. That is just not true.
  According to the Energy Information Administration of the United 
States, we are one of the top oil producers in the world today. In 
2001, the United States produced roughly as much oil on a daily basis 
as Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet Union, which is about 8 to 9 
million barrels a day.
  America produced more than twice as much oil as Iran, more than three 
times as much as Iraq, more than three times as much as the United Arab 
Emirates, and more than three times as much as Canada. The idea that we 
have blocked all the oil development is absolutely ridiculous, faced 
with those statistics.
  I want to talk about the Gulf of Mexico. Ask an oil company executive 
privately right now--and some of them have gone on record publicly--
whether they really want to dig in Alaska. The answer is sometimes no, 
or it depends. Oil companies are holding 7,000 leases today for 
deepwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and not using most of them. 
The reason they have not drilled in the Gulf of Mexico where they 
already have the permits is because they have waited for the price of 
oil to go up because that helps the economics.
  The fact is, if tomorrow the United States were cut off, it would not 
be only Alaska we would look to; it would be the Gulf of Mexico; it 
would be other oil supplies of the United States to which we would 
look.
  According to the Minerals Management Service, there are between 16 
and 25 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the central 
and western Gulf of Mexico. That depends on the price, as I will 
explain in a moment.
  Economically recoverable oil is different from other categories of 
oil that are in the ground and available. ``Economically recoverable'' 
reflects what you can get at the current cost of oil.
  One of the interesting points is most of the studies of our 
colleagues who come in here and say we ought to do this and create 
700,000 jobs and so forth are based on a completely false price for 
oil, not the price we have today.
  Development in the Gulf of Mexico has accelerated. According to the 
Minerals Management Service, 42 new deepwater fields have come online 
since 1995. Production is expected to climb from under 1 million 
barrels per day in 1995 to as much as 1.9 million barrels per day 3 
years from now.
  The Gulf of Mexico reserves are so promising that Lord Brown, whom I 
mentioned earlier, the CEO of British Petroleum, calls them some of the 
most promising reserves in the world. He was asked where the most 
important place to find oil is in the United States. He was asked this 
in an interview by ``60 Minutes'' a couple of months ago. Here is what 
he said:

       The deep water Gulf of Mexico, part of the United States, 
     is probably one of the greatest new oil provinces in the 
     entire world.

  Let me highlight some of the production that is underway in Alaska 
because it has been suggested that somehow we are shutting down 
Alaska's capacity to pump oil.
  Last May, the State of Alaska completed a lease sale of 950,000 acres 
on the North Slope. It is the largest lease by any State in history, 
and they have announced another 7 million acres will be put up for 
lease in the coming years.
  The State of Alaska has scheduled 15 oil and gas leases on 15 million 
acres.
  In 1999, the Bureau of Land Management held a lease sale of 4 million 
acres in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. It is in the process 
of releasing 3 million acres and other plans and it has announced a 
third lease sale of a planning area of 10 million acres.
  In April of 2001, BP, Phillips, and ExxonMobil predicted that there 
is at least 7.8 billion barrels of oil to be developed on the North 
Slope of Alaska.
  In many ways, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge represents our God-given 
natural strategic petroleum reserve. If, indeed, 20 years from now none 
of these things I have predicted happen, if we are so backed up in a 
corner, if technology does not come through, if we do not do our work, 
then at least we might have had the wisdom to have held on to this God-
given strategic petroleum reserve, rather than going for it right now 
at a time when it is not necessary and in demand.
  Let me speak to some of the important issues that I think have to be 
clarified as part of the record.
  No. 1, how much oil is in Alaska? We hear of different amounts of oil 
that we could find there. There are very different estimates. Some 
people say more than 16 billion barrels; some say far less; some argue 
not enough to make development economically viable. That is not where I 
am. I am not trying to go to either extreme, and I think those who only 
go to the extremes do a disservice to the debate.
  I would like to present what I think is the amount of oil that could 
be technically recovered, and that is the amount of oil that could be 
extracted using today's technology without any consideration of cost. 
Of course, we know cost is a consideration, but I am going to deal with 
it technically.
  I have heard this reference continually to radical environmental 
groups. I do not think the United States Geological Survey is a radical 
environmental group. They say there is a 95-percent probability that at 
least 6 billion barrels of oil are technically recoverable. There is a 
5-percent probability that at least 16 billion might be technically 
recoverable. The mean, or the most likely outcome, is that 10 billion 
barrels of oil are technically recoverable.
  The second question is then, How much is economically recoverable? 
This is an estimate of how much oil you could produce at a certain 
price of oil. That number matters actually much more than the technical 
reserves because oil companies simply do not produce oil they cannot 
bring to the market profitably.
  According to the U.S. Geological Survey, again, if oil is priced at 
$25 a barrel, then there is a 95-percent chance that 2 billion barrels 
are economically recoverable. There is a 5-percent chance that 9 
billion barrels are economically recoverable.
  A mean chance, or the most likely outcome, is 5 billion barrels are 
economically recoverable. I might add, these numbers are taken straight 
from the Congressional Research Service briefing on the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge, and the cost estimate is directly from the Energy Information 
Administration reported by CRS.
  It is difficult to estimate how much oil might be in the refuge. 
There are complicating factors, but for the claim to keep coming at us 
that the refuge is going to produce 16 billion barrels and to make all 
the arguments dependent on that is not to do justice to the 
probabilities I put forward and to the realities of oil exploration. 
The claim is not only unrealistic, it runs counter to what proponents 
claim to be the leading reason for drilling, because the leading reason 
for drilling is that it is going to produce for us cheap oil.
  If it is going to produce cheap oil, you diminish the amount of 
recoverable oil because the economics do not work. So if you are 
driving the price down--you cannot get caught in this argument and have 
it both ways.
  I also want to highlight the important difference between what is 
called in-place oil, technically recoverable oil, and economically 
recoverable oil. I know this is a little arcane, but I want to do it 
because I want the record to reflect this is not about caribou alone, 
it is not about some ``not in my back yard.'' This is about clear 
science, economics, oil policy, national security policy, energy 
policy, and the long-term interests of our country.
  The fact is these definitions are vital to understand and to weigh 
the choice we have. On Alaska's North Slope, near Prudhoe Bay, there is 
a field called West Sak. In 1989, Arco estimated the West Sak field 
held as much as 13 billion barrels of oil in place, with another 7 
billion listed as potential. Estimates published in the Society of 
Petroleum Engineers placed the estimate at more than 30 billion barrels 
of oil in total. But the Alaska Department of Natural Resources 
estimates that only 370 million barrels of oil, less than 2 percent of 
the oil in that reserve, will be produced through the year 2020.

[[Page 4820]]

  Why? Because that is all that is economically recoverable. This is 
Alaska itself telling us it is limited because of the price. It is not 
enough to say there is oil in the ground. We have to understand how 
much one can get out, at what kind of price, and what is realistic. We 
are going to hear that with emerging technologies and still-to-be-
invented technologies, the amount of economically recoverable oil might 
rise. I concede that. That is true. That is a positive thing, if it 
happens in the future. But it is also true that the amount of 
economically recoverable oil may be less and the price may go down.
  Why may it go down? Because a whole bunch of people are already 
starting to push that technology curve in the alternatives, and if 
suddenly someone comes in with the capacity to do the hydrogen fuel 
cell or other things, the entire transportation mix and dependency of 
the United States changes, the demand curve goes down, and the price 
goes down, and far less oil will be recoverable.
  On March 10, 2002, the New York Times published a story with the 
following headline: ``Oil Industry Hesitates Over Moving into Arctic 
Refuge.'' The article highlights why the oft-repeated claim that the 
refuge will produce 16 billion barrels of oil is simply inaccurate, and 
I share this quote: ``Big oil companies go where there are substantial 
fields and where they can produce oil economically,'' said Ronald 
Chappell, a spokesman for BP Alaska, which officially supports the area 
and drilling. He continued: ``Does ANWR have that? Who knows?''
  That is the conclusion of the company; not 16. Who knows?
  The article continues: There is still a fair amount of exploration 
risk here. You could go through 8 years of litigation, a good amount of 
investment, and still come up with dry holes or uneconomic discoveries, 
said Jerry Kepes, the managing director for exploration and production 
issues at the Petroleum Finance Company, which is a Washington 
consulting firm for oil companies. Quote: It is not clear that this is 
quite the bonanza that some have said.
  So we have to weigh, do we take this not quite so clear bonanza and 
destroy an Arctic wildlife refuge, for which some people have 
disrespect but, as I will show, I think is a concept that captures the 
imagination of many Americans and is worth preserving.
  This article says a great deal about how little oil might be in the 
refuge, and it stands in stark contrast to some of the claims we have 
heard in the press and in the Senate about the 16 billion. An article 
in the Washington Post examines some of the competing claims over the 
refuge oil potential. It said as follows:

       How much oil is out there? No one knows for sure. But the 
     environmental movement's favorite statistic is a USGS 
     estimate that the Coastal Plain contains 3.2 billion barrels 
     of economically recoverable oil at the current price of $20 
     per barrel, about what the Nation uses in 6 months.

  I will concede in the last few days the price of oil has gone up a 
little bit. That figure probably goes up with it, and of course that is 
true. But Senator Murkowski wrote a letter to the Post that the USGS 
actually estimates 10.3 billion barrels of economically recoverable 
oil. The truth, according to the USGS, that conducted this study, is 
they have said directly Senator Murkowski is wrong in stating that 
figure and the environmentalists are right, and that is a quote from 
the USGS.
  To lay it out, proponents of drilling are regularly exaggerating the 
production by as much as 200 percent. Likewise, some of the opponents 
of drilling sometimes underestimate production by as much as 40 
percent, assuming that oil costs less than $20 per barrel.
  In my estimation, the most reliable prediction is that the refuge 
might produce about 5 billion barrels of oil over its productive 
lifetime, and that is if oil is priced at about $25 per barrel. I 
should add that the Energy Information Administration predicts oil will 
be at about $22.50 per barrel, not $25 per barrel. So, again, 5 billion 
barrels may be somewhat high.
  What would it mean if one were to find 5 billion barrels in the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge? That is the next thing we ought to try to 
measure. A lot of promises have been made by the other side. They have 
suggested it is a solution to oil shortages, heating oil shortages, 
high gas prices, electricity brownouts, unemployment, national 
security. It is even being tied to specific conflicts and incidents 
around the globe. Someone might believe, listening to this, that the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge is the magic elixir that is going to cure most 
of the ills we face. But the fact is, if one is simply an oil company 
and they are looking to drill some oil, that can be a lot of oil. It is 
money, money in the pocket, profits; no question about it. I 
acknowledge that.
  That is not what we are measuring. We are not an oil company. We 
represent the people of the United States of America, and our country 
has to weigh that potential 5 billion barrels and what it means in the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge to the curves we displayed earlier that show our 
dependency on foreign oil, 70 percent of which goes into 
transportation, which mandates that we begin to deal with a whole 
different set of energy choices for our country.
  There is another issue we need to think about with respect to this. 
We need to think about how much oil is going to be produced not in the 
total lifetime but on a daily basis because that is what affects 
supply. This number helps us understand what the real impact of the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge might be. Once again, the proponents of the 
drilling, from the White House to the Senate, have exaggerated those 
estimates more than they have even exaggerated the overall recoverable 
oil.
  We have heard that the refuge oil is, as I said, a solution to a 
whole bunch of problems, such as the California electricity crisis. I 
showed the quote where Alaska Governor Tony Knowles responded it will 
not have any impact at all on California. The refuge, as I said, will 
not produce oil for 7 to 10 years. That means if you open the refuge 
today, you are not going to see oil until about 2012, maybe a couple of 
years earlier.
  The relevant agencies of our Government and the industry itself have 
said this 10-year figure is about the average; maybe 7 to 10, but they 
bank on about 10. The Energy Information Administration says 7 to 10 
years. The Congressional Research Service says 10 years. The industry's 
own economic analysis produced by WEFA Economic Forecasters, which I 
should add is wildly optimistic about every aspect of oil drilling, 
predicts it will take 10 years for the oil to begin flowing. That is 
from the group that produced most of the studies on which they rely. 
They say 10 years.
  Asked in a Senate hearing how long it will take, the president of the 
exploration of production for ExxonMobile said:

       In the normal process we would probably allow 3 to 4 years 
     for the permitting which would put you in the 10-year range.

  Let's end these arguments that this is the cure to the Middle East 
crisis today, or that this is somehow going to prevent a young American 
man or woman in uniform from having to go over and defend an oilfield 
next year, the year after, or the year after that. The United States, 
even if we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is still so 
dependent on foreign oil now, until we change our overall energy mix, 
America's youth will be at risk to protect America's dependency.
  We have heard a lot of talk about jobs, how many jobs will be 
created, what this will do. We have even heard that the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge drilling is the solution in place of the stimulus or part of the 
stimulus during the course of last year, and it will produce an 
immediate impact. It is interesting to note Secretary of the Interior 
Gale Norton has been sent around to a bunch of press events in 
Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, and New York as a representative of the 
Federal Government--incidentally, the agency charged with managing our 
public lands--and she has been promising the drilling of the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge creates 700,000 jobs across the Nation. Secretary 
Norton's tour, No. 1, is a political tour, not the management of our 
lands. And oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge does not create 700,000 
jobs.

[[Page 4821]]

That claim comes directly from a study that has been universally 
discredited. It is a bogus study.
  First of all, the 700,000 job claim is for 1 year in about 2015. Yet 
you never hear the Bush administration mention that. Not only is the 
700,000 number a wild exaggeration, but it doesn't represent the 
startup and decrease with respect to jobs in this particular effort. 
Moreover--and here is the most important thing, much more important 
than anything else with respect to the study--the claim is based on a 
12-year-old study produced by WEFA Economic Forecasters, paid for by 
the American Petroleum Institute. According to that API study--this is 
their study--drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge produces zero jobs 
for the next 4 years; zero jobs according to their own analysis.
  There is a choice. We can invest in the pipeline for natural gas 
which could immediately produce jobs, or we could drill immediately in 
other areas where we know we already have permitting and the ability to 
drill. That would be a more immediate job production than this. It is 
interesting, you would have to wait until 2007 for the jobs to be 
produced.
  I highlight a couple of the technical inaccuracies of this study 
which has been thrown around so much. The Center for Economic Policy 
and Research assessed that study and made the following points.
  No. 1, according to Energy Information Agency estimates, the API 
study overstates oil production in the refuge by a factor of 3. 
Adjusting the projections to keep them in line with the EIA estimates 
reduces predicted job creation by more than 60 percent. The API study 
assumes other oil producers, especially OPEC, do little to increase 
production and bolster oil prices. Adjusting other production to keep 
them in line with conventional estimates reduces the job creation by 
another 40 percent. The API study assumes the economy will be far more 
affected by a drop in oil prices than is reasonable to expect and 
substituting a more reasonable estimate lowers the projection by about 
75 percent.
  As I have said, that study was written 10 years ago. So we can test 
some of the assumption and predictions easily. The study was based on 
oil costing more than $45 per barrel in the year 2000. Let me repeat: 
Here is a study that they are still using, they still come to the floor 
to say creates a lot of jobs, that, in fact, predicted a price of oil 
double what the price of oil is today, which increases the recoverable 
oil and changes the entire economics. Oil back then was $25 per barrel.
  Here is another example. The study assumes that when Arctic oil 
flows, the world market for oil will be 55 million barrels per day. The 
world market today is already more than 70 million barrels a day, and 
it will be much higher by the time the production occurs. When the 
wrong and, frankly, stretched assumptions are corrected in the API 
study, the job estimates fall to 50,000 nationally. To put this in 
perspective, that is fewer jobs than what our economy generated in an 
average week over the years 1997 through the year 2000. That is what 
our economy is capable of doing in any week if our economy is moving in 
the right direction.
  I will read from an Associated Press article published in March a 
remarkable story that shows that while President Bush's Cabinet 
Secretary, Gale Norton, tours the Nation promising America 700,000 
jobs, the people who supported the API study are distancing themselves 
from it because it is faulty. Here is what the article reports:

       The authors of the 1990 study no longer work at the company 
     [that prepared it], according to a spokesman who acknowledged 
     it was ``a bit out of date.'' ``We would not come up with the 
     same numbers today,'' said Mary Novak, an economist and 
     managing director.
       Some of the assumptions made more than a decade ago ``are 
     suspect, and you might underline suspect,'' says Roger Ebel, 
     a global energy expert for the Center for Strategic and 
     International Studies.

  And he has been involved in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge drilling 
debate.
  The Congressional Research Service has looked at this question and 
assessed how many jobs might be created from drilling in the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge. Its report also casts doubt on the API study. CRS said 
the following.
  First, if the economy is operating at full employment, jobs created 
by drilling in the refuge would come at the expense of an equal number 
of jobs in the rest of the economy. In other words, if we pull this 
economy out of recession and get ourselves to full employment, drilling 
is not going to create any additional jobs.
  That is the Congressional Research Service; it is not me. I am 
quoting the Congressional Research Service.
  Second, job creation from drilling in the Arctic Refuge may be as 
little as 8 percent of API's claims. The Congressional Research service 
gives a range of between 60,000 and 130,000 jobs. Again, when the 
economy was expanding in recent years, it created that many jobs in 3 
weeks.
  Third, should oil prices drop, which CRS describes as uncertain, any 
employment gain from that drop would be offset by harm to oil producers 
not operating in the refuge, who would then conceivably reduce their 
operations and workforce, impacting suppliers and local economies in 
other ways.
  Let me turn to a question of price. Jobs is not the only expanded, 
exaggerated component of the argument. Another is the question of how, 
if we develop in the refuge, we will lower the price of oil and 
gasoline, heating fuel, diesel, all the products we produce from oil. 
When we examine the facts which I went through a bit earlier, the fact 
is, the price of oil now is not going to be affected by what happens in 
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because, as we have seen, you have to be, 
first of all, certain about the amount of oil it will produce; and, 
secondly, there are three different assumptions to make about the oil 
from the refuge. You could use the exaggerated peak production, you can 
use the 1 million barrels a day you hear about from the President and 
from other supporters, or you could use the mean production, which is 
about 660,000 barrels for 1 year, in the year 2020, or you could use an 
average production over the life of the refuge, which is about 360,000 
barrels of oil.
  I say the reason we might use any of these is that none of them, even 
the overblown 1 million barrels a day, will have any impact on oil 
prices whatsoever. Use any one you want, it does not matter, because 
the bottom line is that you cannot affect the price even on the day of 
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge's largest production of oil. Here is why.
  Central to the idea that the refuge will lower oil prices is the 
notion that the United States of America, in our production, drives oil 
prices. It does not, and it will not. It cannot. The price of oil is 
set in the global market. According to the Energy Information 
Administration, the world market for oil in 2020 will consume 119 
million barrels per day. Refuge oil, for that single peak year of 2020, 
would amount to between .25 and 1.17 percent of the entire global 
consumption. That is simply not enough, under economic models of 
anybody anywhere. No economic model would suggest that .25 to 1.17 
percent of the total production has the ability to affect that global 
oil price. The fact is that the average production, probably at around 
360,000 barrels, is much less than peak production, and we all know 
that is not going to have the ability to affect the price. So this 
argument is incorrect.
  What about independence from imported oil? I talked about that. I do 
not want to repeat all of that now. But the bottom line is there is not 
one single day in which the Arctic Wildlife Refuge production will 
replace Saudi imports. It just doesn't amount to that. These are not my 
numbers, these are the numbers that come from the Congressional 
Research Service.
  I should point out the technical estimate is not a likely outcome. It 
is not the economic estimate. I use it to make the point that using 
only the highly optimistic, greatest potential, you still do not have 
the ability to affect the total of the Saudi imports.
  The false promises go way beyond Saudi Arabia. As we have heard them 
say over and over again, ANWR will ensure energy independence; it will 
reduce our dependence on imported oil. Nothing we have heard has 
revealed anything except that promise is completely inflated and 
unrealistic because

[[Page 4822]]

of the relationship of the amount of oil there to the global supply.
  The report from the Energy Information Administration was requested 
by Senator Murkowski. This report, requested by Senator Murkowski, says 
if you accept the EIA's reference case for oil imports and the mean 
estimate for refuge oil production that is the most likely outcome, oil 
imports will drop from 62 percent to 60 percent for 1 year, about 2020. 
Every other year, imports will be higher. This is, again, the Energy 
Information Administration in response to Senator Murkowski.
  So the President of the United States and other proponents have told 
America they have a plan for the Nation, a plan to ensure energy 
independence, to protect our national security. They back up the plan 
with a lot of talk about national security. They have insisted we 
attach ANWR to the Department of Defense authorization bill last year 
because it was an urgent matter of national security. They hold press 
events with big pictures of Saddam Hussein. When two servicemen died in 
duty to our Nation, they suggested it was about the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge and that was related because we do not drill in the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge.
  Their plan, this master plan that will ensure energy independence, is 
simply without validity. Under no economic model whatsoever, under no 
supply and demand curve, no way whatsoever can 3 percent supply the 
needs of 25 percent and growing. It just does not happen. So we need to 
vote accordingly here in the Senate.
  The fact is that 20 years from now, we will import 60 to 62 percent 
of our oil from foreign countries. Nothing we do, absent inventing 
alternatives, is going to diminish that. If we drill in the Arctic 
Refuge, we are not going to stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia. 
Nobody suggests that. We are not going to stop importing it from any of 
these other nations we are concerned about ultimately.
  So I think it is clear that the flow of money to terrorists is not 
going to stop. If we drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, it is not 
going to suddenly make peace in the Middle East. If we drill in the 
Arctic, our forces are not suddenly going to come home. There is going 
to be no change in deployment; There will be no change in what we may 
have to do with respect to Saddam Hussein, which we ought to do anyway, 
regardless what happens in the ANWR.
  Will a single soldier, marine, or sailor today in harm's way come 
home if we make a decision to drill? The answer is no. We should not. 
We should terminate this notion that somehow fools people that that is, 
indeed, what is at stake here.
  I want to correct one thing I said a moment ago. The CAFE standards 
would not begin immediately. Earlier I misspoke when I said that. The 
CAFE standards take some time to ramp up and take effect. But had we 
put that into effect in 1990, we would today, in the year 2002, be 
saving 1 million barrels of oil per day, which is close to the amount 
we import from Iraq. That represents the Iraq figure.
  I have spoken almost entirely about energy policy. It is my own 
belief that this is sort of the critical moment in the life of the 
United States, in our lives, to make a choice about our future. Are we 
going to just kind of keep going down the road where we pretend to 
ourselves that just drilling for oil is the solution? Or do we begin to 
force the transition?
  In the 1930s, many parts of America did not get electricity. They 
could not get it. But Roosevelt and others decided it was critical for 
the development of our Nation, for our Nation's future economy, and for 
our well-being, for kids to be able to have schools with lights, to 
have power and so forth in their homes--that we got that electricity 
out into the rural and poor communities. So what did we do? The Federal 
Government spent several billion dollars to subsidize, to make sure we 
put that electricity out.
  In the same way, the Government must today make a decision about the 
well-being of our country. Are we better off continuing down a road 
where we already know we have oil we can drill in Alaska and the North 
Slope? I have described how much we are drilling, how much has been 
leased and put out for lease already. We already know we have 7,000 
leases in the Gulf of Mexico. We can go down there and continue that 
process. But are we going to make the decision as a country to begin to 
embrace a future that is a different mix of fuels for transportation 
and begin to legitimately end our dependence on foreign oil?
  The only way to change our dependence on foreign oil is to change the 
way we propel our motor vehicles. Transportation consumes 70 percent of 
the oil we use. I said this at the outset, and I want to repeat these 
principles. Not one of these choices we make for our energy future 
should be done if it doesn't make economic sense. We do not have to 
lower the quality of life for Americans. We have to recognize we are 
going to drill for 30 to 50 years and we have the places we can do 
that. Finally, most of the gains in the near term, in terms of fuel use 
and our dependency, are going to come from efficiencies in the current 
regime. Those efficiencies come from hybrids, new technologies, 
alternatives, renewables, et cetera.
  Those are the principles that must guide us. But I do not want to 
leave out what I think is a critical component of this argument that 
should not be diminished. It does not deserve to be derided in the way 
it has been derided by some of our colleagues, with respect to what 
this refuge means in terms of the environment.
  Some who want to industrialize the Arctic Refuge call it a barren 
wasteland. It has been described as hell. It has been described in many 
different ways, but I think those descriptions reveal more about a 
point of view and the value than it does about the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge.
  There are those on the opposite side of this debate who may look at 
the refuge and only see beauty in an oil rig, and they may only see the 
foregone profit of conservation. But those views do not reflect the 
science, and I don't believe they reflect the best instincts of 
Americans.
  Let me read some of the more objective descriptions of ANWR's 
environmental value to America today and to future generations. The 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the great untouched lands 
remaining in America and on the northern continent. Its ecological 
value is unlike any other in the Nation and in the world.

       The Congressional Research Service describes the refuge as 
     follows: ``The portion of Alaska's North Slope between 
     Prudhoe Bay and the Canadian border represents this country's 
     largest, most diverse remaining example of a largely 
     untouched arctic ecosystem. . . . The apparently hostile 
     nature of the area belies its national and international 
     significance as an ecological reserve. It protects a 
     virtually undisturbed, nearly complete spectrum of arctic 
     ecosystems, and is one of the last places north of the Brooks 
     Range that remains legally closed to development.''
       In 1959, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote: ``The great 
     diversity of vegetation and topography . . . in this compact 
     area, together with its relatively undisturbed condition, led 
     to its selection as the most suitable opportunity for 
     protecting a portion of the remaining wildlife and its 
     frontiers. That area included within the proposed range is a 
     major habitat, particularly in summer, for the great herds of 
     arctic caribou, and countless lakes, ponds, and marshes found 
     in this area are nesting grounds for large numbers of 
     migratory waterfowl that spend about half of each year in the 
     rest of the United States; thus, the production here is of 
     importance to a great many sportsmen. . . . The proposed 
     range is restricted to the area which contains all of the 
     requisites for year round use. The coastal area is the only 
     place in the United States where polar bear dens are found.''
       The Department of Interior found in 1987 that ``the Arctic 
     Refuge is the only conservation system unit that protects, in 
     an undistributed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic 
     ecosystem in North America.'' It described the 1002 area as 
     ``the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge 
     for wildlife and is the center of the wildlife activity. . . 
     . The area presents many opportunities for scientific study 
     of a relatively undisturbed ecosystem.''

  Let me repeat that the Fish and Wildlife Service is not a radical 
environmental group. Frankly, I am tired of people who refer to this 
sort of radical environmental component when

[[Page 4823]]

our own agencies--the Fish and Wildlife Service and Interior--are 
telling us, don't disturb this.
  This is what the Fish and Wildlife Service says:

       The closeness of the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean in 
     the Arctic Refuge creates a combination of landscapes and 
     habitats unique in North America. The area has exceptional 
     scenic, wildlife, wilderness, recreation, and scientific 
     values. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the only 
     protected area in the Nation where people can explore a full 
     range of arctic and subarctic ecosystems.
       The Refuge includes alpine and arctic tundra, barren 
     mountains, boreal forests, shrub thickets, and wetlands. The 
     coast has numerous points, shoals, mud flats, and barrier 
     islands that shelter shallow, brackish lagoons. The tundra is 
     typically a layer of peat overlain by a carpet of mosses, 
     sedges, and flowering plants. Spruce, poplar, and willow 
     trees shade the south slope valleys.
       Continuous summer daylight produces rapid but brief plant 
     growth. Underlying permaforst and low evaporation cause many 
     areas to remain wet throughout the summer. These factors, 
     along with shallow plant roots and a slow revegetation rate, 
     result in a fragile landscape easily disturbed by human 
     activities.

  Why would we violate the concept of a pristine area? Why, when oil is 
available in all these other areas we talked about, is there such a 
compelling interest in destroying that area at this point in time?
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has inventoried some of the refuge's 
environmental qualities. They include:

       Eighteen major rivers; arctic tundra, the Brooks Range, 
     boreal forests, and a full range of arctic and subarctic 
     habitats; the Brooks Range of mountains rise only 10-40 miles 
     from the Beaufort Sea on the coastal plain; the greatest 
     variety of plant and animal life of any conservation area in 
     the arctic; more than 180 birds from four continents have 
     been identified in the Refuge and its coastal plain is a 
     major migration route; Peregrine falcons, endangered in the 
     lower-48 states, thrive in the Refuge; it is home to 36 
     species of land mammals; it protects the calving ground of 
     the Porcupine caribou herd, the second largest herd in North 
     America; it is home to black, brown and polar bears; 9 marine 
     mammals live off its coast; 36 fish species live in its 
     rivers and lakes; there are more than 300 archaeological 
     sites; and, there are no roads, trails or developments. 
     Wilderness prevails.

  That is the question before the Senate, whether this is a valuable 
wilderness. People say it is only going to be a small imprint; it is 
only going to be a few pipes and a few roads. The fact is, experience 
has shown us that is not an accurate description of what happens.
  William O. Douglas, the former U.S. Supreme Court Justice said.

       This is the place for man turned scientist and explorer; 
     poet and artist. Here he can experience a new reverence for 
     life that is outside his own and yet a vital and joyous part 
     of it.

  Cecil Andrus, the former Secretary of the Interior, said:

       In some places, such as the Arctic Refuge, the wildlife and 
     natural values are so magnificent and so enduring that they 
     transcend the value of any mineral that may lie beneath the 
     surface. Such minerals are finite. Production inevitably 
     means changes whose impacts will be measured in geologic time 
     in order to gain marginal benefits that may last a few years.

  Congressman Morris Udall said,

       It is a whole place, as true a wilderness as there is 
     anywhere on this continent and unlike any other that I know 
     of.

  President Jimmy Carter has written,

       Having traveled extensively in this unique wilderness, I 
     feel very strongly about its incredible natural values.'' . . 
     . ``I have crouched on a peninsula in the Beaufort Sea to 
     watch the ancient defensive circling of musk oxen who 
     perceived us a threat to their young. We sat in profound 
     wonder on the tundra as 80,000 caribou streamed around and 
     past us in their timeless migration from vital calving 
     grounds on the coastal plain. These phenomena of the 
     untrammeled earth are what lead wildlife experts to 
     characterize the coastal plain as America's Serengeti.

  We have heard that drilling will not take place on the entire Refuge. 
Rather it will take place only on the refuge's coastal plain, the so-
called 1002 Area. So I want to talk some about the 1002 Area and why it 
should be protected. It is not a complicated issue. The coastal plain 
is a special place even within the environmental treasure of the 
refuge, and it is the place where oil exploration is likely to do the 
most damage to the Refuge.

  The Department of Interior found in 1987 that the

     1002 area is the most biologically productive part of the 
     Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is the center of the wildlife 
     activity. . . . The area presents many opportunities for 
     scientific study of a relatively undisturbed ecosystem.

  The Fish and Wildlife Service has said that

     The Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge, the part of the 
     Refuge being considered for oil drilling, is the most 
     biologically productive part of the refuge and the heart of 
     the refuge's wildlife acivity. Opening the Arctic Refuge to 
     oil development would threaten the birthing ground of 
     thousands of caribou and important habitat for polar bears, 
     swans, snow geese, muskoxen and numerous other species.

  I repeat that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with the 
responsibility for making those judgments.
  A group of more than 500 ecologists, biologists, resource managers, 
and other experts from around the country have assessed the scientific 
literature and the importance of the Coastal Plain. They made the 
following conclusion:

       Five decades of biological study and scientific research 
     have confirmed that the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge forms a vital component of the biological 
     diversity of the refuge and merits the same kind of permanent 
     safeguards and precautionary management as the rest of this 
     original conservation unit. In contrast to the broader 
     coastal plain to the west of the Arctic Refuge, the coastal 
     plain within the refuge is much narrower. This unique 
     compression of habitats concentrates the occurrence of a wide 
     variety of wildlife and fish species, including polar bears, 
     grizzly bears, wolves, wolverines, caribou, muskoxen, Dolly 
     Varden, Arctic grayling, snow geese, and more than 130 other 
     species of migratory birds. In fact, according to the Fish 
     and Wildlife Service, the Arctic Refuge coastal plain 
     contains the greatest wildlife diversity of any protected 
     area above the Arctic Circle.

  Scientists with the National Audubon Society studied how oil 
development might impact the millions of birds that migrate through the 
Coastal Plain to locations throughout the lower 48 States, South 
America, and even Africa. They concluded that:

       The Arctic Refuge, including its coastal plain, has 
     extraordinary value as an intact [intact] ecosystem, with all 
     its native birdlife. The millions of birds that nest, migrate 
     through, or spend the winter in the refuge are a conspicuous 
     and fundamental part of the refuge ecosystem.

  Obviously, this is a special place. Those who deride it as simply a 
barren wasteland, better for oil drilling than anything else, I think 
do a disservice to the conservation ethic, the preservation ethic, and 
to the value of the ecosystem itself, which has been preserved for a 
purpose.
  But let me just point out how drilling would, in fact, impact this 
special place I have described. This is the last thing I will do before 
yielding.
  We hear people argue that oil drilling will do little or even no harm 
to the Coastal Plain ecosystem. But, unfortunately, the evidence from 
decades of oil exploration in other areas of Alaska shows otherwise. It 
simply tells a different story. The history speaks.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service has examined that question and 
concluded the following:

       All reasonable scenarios for oil development on the coastal 
     plain of the Arctic Refuge envision roads, drilling pads, 
     long pipelines, secondary or feeder pipelines, housing, oil 
     processing facilities, gas injection plants, airports and 
     other infrastructure. In addition, the U.S.G.S. 1998 
     assessment found that oil in the Arctic Refuge appears to be 
     spread out in several pools rather than in one large 
     formation like Prudhoe Bay, making it harder to minimize the 
     development ``foot print.''

  A group of more than 500 ecologists, biologists, and resource experts 
wrote the following:

       The Interior Department has predicted that oil and gas 
     exploration and development would have a major effect on 
     water resources. Fresh water already is limited on the 
     Refuge's coastal plain, and direct damage to wetlands will 
     adversely affect fish, waterfowl, and other migratory birds. 
     These potentially disruptive effects to fish and wildlife 
     should not be viewed in isolation, however. . . . We urge you 
     to protect the biological diversity and wilderness character 
     of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
     from future oil and gas development.

  I want to summarize a briefing provided to the Senate by the Wildlife 
Society of America. The society was

[[Page 4824]]

founded in 1937. It is an international, nonprofit, scientific and 
educational association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship 
through science and education. Its membership is comprised of research 
scientists, educators, communications specialists, conservation law 
enforcement officers, resource managers, administrators, and students 
from more than 60 countries.
  What makes their briefing so important is that it addresses both the 
scientific evidence and the erroneous information that has been widely 
circulated by the industry and by drilling proponents. Let me address 
the scientific first. I will read from their position on the refuge.
  In September of 2001, the Wildlife Society released its official 
position of petroleum exploration and development in ANWR. It was 
prepared and approved by the Alaska chapter of the Wildlife Society. 
They object to oil development on the Coastal Plain for the following 
general reasons:

       The adverse effects of petroleum development on some 
     wildlife species at existing North Slope oil fields have not 
     been avoided.
       The unique aspects of wildlife resources in the environment 
     in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain are such that mitigation 
     of the impacts of oil development is questionable.
       The long-term, cumulative effects of petroleum extraction 
     on fish and wildlife resources are unknown.
       There is substantial scientific merit in maintaining part 
     of Alaska's Arctic Coastal Plain in an undeveloped state for 
     long-term studies of the effects on fish and wildlife 
     resources of climate change in the Arctic.

  The statement continues:

       The Alaska Chapter's position statement committee was 
     composed of federal, state, industry, and university wildlife 
     biologists, including caribou experts--all from Alaska. In 
     developing the position statement, the committee accounted 
     for all available data relating to wildlife resources and oil 
     development, whether the data supported or opposed drilling. 
     Most committee members have had extensive experience working 
     in northern Alaska and used this experience to formulate 
     their recommendations.
       The Wildlife Society advocates using sound biological 
     information in policy decisions. The Society desires that all 
     scientific aspects of the ANWR issue, including the 
     uncertainty permeating the issue, be considered openly, as 
     the final policy is developed. Careful analysis is extremely 
     important at this time, because not only are the wildlife 
     impacts of oil extraction uncertain, but numerous other 
     issues--such as the amount of recoverable oil, the potential 
     energy benefits from it, and the prudence of drilling in the 
     Refuge--are still under debate.

  The society provided additional important details to support its 
conclusion. Let me say very quickly what they said:

       Development of the Coastal Plain's petroleum resources 
     could have serious, long-term impacts to caribou and other 
     wildlife resources of the Arctic Refuge.
       With present knowledge of the fish and wildlife resources 
     of the Arctic Refuge and of the functioning of arctic 
     ecosystems, and considering available information on the 
     impacts of current and ongoing petroleum development in 
     Alaska's North Slope oil fields, the primary biological 
     concerns of the Alaska Chapter of The Wildlife Society 
     regarding oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge 
     include:
       Potential impacts on the Porcupine Caribou Herd that 
     migrates to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge;
       Potential impacts on muskoxen that inhabit the Coastal 
     Plain of the Refuge year round;
       Potential impacts on polar bears that
     use the Coastal Plain in [that period of
     time]. . . .
       [As well as] the effects of disturbance on up to 500,000 
     adult snow geese that migrate through the Coastal Plain;
       The dewatering of streams and lakes during exploration and 
     production activities. . . .
       Alterations of shoreline ecosystems for the construction of 
     causeways, drill pads, and other petroleum-related 
     facilities. . . .
       The unknown, long-term, and cumulative effects of 
     development on ecosystem processes critical to long-term 
     viability and integrity of the arctic environment.

  Based on studies in existing areas of oil development in the North 
Slope, they believe petroleum development on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge 
would inevitably result in loss of wildlife habitat and probable 
declines in some wildlife populations.
  Many times throughout this debate, people have pointed to the 
development of the central and western portions of Alaska's North 
Slope, particularly Prudhoe Bay. They say this proves that the oil 
companies can develop the refuge without harming the environment. Well, 
no one is going to dispute that wilderness goes on forever in every 
place. But you cannot put an oil drilling complex in a wilderness area 
and call it wilderness. You just can't do it. You are either going to 
decide you are going to have some area set aside as pristine wilderness 
or you are not. That is part of what this debate is about, in 
conjunction with the question of timing.
  Maybe in the United States of America, somewhere down the road, our 
backs will be up against the wall, and maybe we will not have made good 
economic decisions, maybe we will not have developed the technologies 
we need. Maybe somewhere down the line other nations all gang up, and 
they will not supply us, and the United States may be stuck in a 
position, and this tiny bit of oil will make a difference, and the 
United States at that point might decide it wants to make that choice.
  But there is nothing in the economics, there is nothing in the 
current global situation, there is nothing in the amount of oil that 
can be found, there is nothing in the economically recoverable oil that 
suggests that that kind of difference is worth this choice at this 
time, particularly when there is so much in the way of oil alternatives 
in the Gulf of Mexico, natural gas alternatives, and continued drilling 
in Prudhoe Bay, the North Slope area.
  But the record of Prudhoe Bay itself is not quite as pristine as they 
want to suggest it is. Oil development on the North Slope has resulted 
in 500 miles of roads, more than 1,100 miles of pipelines, thousands of 
acres of facilities spread out over 1,000 square miles, 3,800 
exploratory wells, 170 exploratory drill and drill pads, 22 gravel 
mines, 25 processing plants for oil, gas, and seawater, 56,000 tons of 
nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain, which is twice 
as much as is emitted by the city of Washington, DC. Our Nation's 
Capital emits less global warming gas than drilling in Prudhoe Bay.
  Nearly 400 spills occur annually on the North Slope's oilfields; 
roughly 40 toxic substances, ranging from waste oil to acids, have been 
spilled. As much as 6 billion gallons of drilling waste have been 
dumped in 450 reserves pits. Three class I injection wells have been 
constructed and injected with more than 325 million gallons of waste. 
Thirty class II injection wells have been constructed and injected with 
more than 40 billion gallons of waste.
  Several experts have examined the impacts of oil development in 
Prudhoe Bay on the environment and what it might mean for the oil 
development of the Arctic Refuge. Again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service says:

       Air and water pollution and contaminated sites continue to 
     be a serious problem in Prudhoe Bay and are inevitable with 
     any oil development. Many gravel pads on the North Slope are 
     contaminated by chronic spills. In addition, hundreds of oil 
     exploratory and production drilling waste pits have yet to be 
     closed out and the sites restored. More than 76 contaminated 
     sites exist on the North Slope and contractor performance has 
     been spotty.
       Prudhoe Bay is a major source of air pollution and green 
     house gas emission among the Arctic Coastal Plain. Prudhoe 
     Bay facilities annually emit approximately 55,000 tons of 
     nitrogen oxide which contributes to smog and acid rain. North 
     Slope oil facilities release roughly 24,000 tons of methane. 
     Industry has numerous violations of particulate matter 
     emissions and has opposed introduction of new technology to 
     reduce nitrogen oxides and requirements for low sulfur fuel 
     use.

  That is our own Fish and Wildlife Service.
  A group of more than 500 ecologists, biologists, and resource experts 
wrote Congress saying:

       Based on our collective experience and understanding of the 
     cumulative effects of oil and gas exploration and development 
     on Alaska's North Slope, we do not believe these impacts have 
     been adequately considered for the Arctic Refuge, and 
     mitigation without adequate data on this complex ecosystem is 
     unlikely. Oil exploration and development have substantially 
     changed environments where they have occurred in Alaska's 
     central Arctic. Since the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 
     1968, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated about 800 
     square miles of Arctic habitats have been transformed into 
     one of the world's largest industrial complexes. Oil spills, 
     contaminated waste, and other sources of pollution have

[[Page 4825]]

     had measurable environmental impacts in spite of strict 
     environmental regulations. Roads, pipelines, well pads, 
     processing facilities, and other support infrastructure have 
     incrementally altered the character of this system.

  The Wildlife Society, the Alaska chapter, believes that ``petroleum 
exploration and development are not warranted on the Coastal Plain of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,'' which they have deemed, as I 
mentioned earlier, a critical area for the abundance and diversity of 
wildlife.
  We also need to look at the issue of compliance. This is particularly 
true when oil production starts to decline, as it will. There is a 
curve here. Let me share it with you. I have the chart in the 
cloakroom. Maybe we can get it in a minute.
  The point of the chart is to show that obviously, like any finite 
resource, as you begin production, you begin slowly. You build up. You 
build up to a peak. And then, of course, since there is only so much 
there, you begin to come down. What often happens in this debate is we 
wind up with peak production day being the amount of oil that is thrown 
around, whereas you have to work up to that and then come down.
  If you were to compare that to what would happen, for instance, with 
CAFE standards, CAFE standards don't go up and down, CAFE standards 
continue to accrue as you go forward. Every day in the future, you will 
be grabbing X amount of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and so forth, 
out of the atmosphere and recapturing it or preventing it from going 
in.
  You can actually save three times as much fuel as the peak production 
day. You save three times as much foreign dependency by putting CAFE 
standards in place as you would drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
  When oil exploration is over, when the companies don't want to invest 
any more money in the project, what is the commitment to clean up? All 
over this country--the Presiding Officer's State of New Jersey--there 
are unfunded liabilities in toxic sites where the companies don't clean 
them up. We have just seen this administration seek to change the 
``polluter pays'' principle which, incidentally, is a tax on the 
American citizen. I don't know if people are focused on that right now. 
Maybe it is worth a moment. When you undo ``polluter pays,'' as the 
principle that has guided our cleanup in America of our toxic sites, 
then the question is, Who pays? The average taxpayer is going to pay. 
The Federal Government is going to have to dump that money in if the 
``polluter pays'' principle is not there. That is a tax increase on 
Americans. It is the Bush environmental tax on Americans.
  By ending ``polluter pays,'' we are now going to turn, and either 
nobody cleans it up--which is what is happening right now because we 
are not putting the money into Superfund--or the taxpayer across the 
country pays.
  That is the problem in Alaska, too. Who is going to clean up in the 
end? What is the State pristineness? Can you ever restore pristine? The 
answer, I think most people know, is no.
  In the year 2000, BP Alaska reached agreement with the Environmental 
Protection Agency to pay $7 million in civil and criminal penalties and 
$15 million to carry out a nationwide environmental management system. 
BP was sentenced in Federal court in February 2000 to pay $500,000 in 
criminal fines and $6.5 million for failing to report illegal hazardous 
waste disposals on the North Slope.
  From 1993 to 1995, employees of a contractor up there illegally 
discharged hazardous substances, including solvents, waste paint, paint 
thinner, waste oil containing lead and toxic chemicals such as benzene, 
toluene, methylene chloride, by injecting them into wells. They failed 
to report the illegal dumping as required by law.
  The Wall Street Journal, in a series of investigative stories, has 
documented widespread problems at other facilities on the North Slope. 
On April 12, 2001, they reported:

       Days before Interior Secretary Gale Norton's much-
     publicized tour of Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oilfields last month, 
     state inspectors made a startling discovery: almost a third 
     of the safety valves tested at one drilling platform failed 
     to close.

  The story continues:

       . . . technicians say they have complained for years about 
     the integrity of the industry's ``friendlier technology.'' 
     Some technicians who operate machinery--which proliferates on 
     Prudhoe Bay and could be replicated in the wildlife refuge--
     are so understaffed and lacking in routine maintenance that 
     they are leak-prone and vulnerable to explosions.

  On April 26, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported:

       About 10 percent of the safety shut-off valves in BP Amoco 
     entire drilling operation on Alaska's Western Prudhoe Bay 
     failed
     to pass state tests during the first
     quarter. . . .

  On November 9, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that an 
internal report revealed ``widespread operational problems at its giant 
oil field in Prudhoe Bay''--that they were widespread operational 
problems. Investigators found large and growing maintenance backlogs on 
fire and gas detection systems and pressure safety valves. The report 
concluded:

       The systems are old, portions of them pre-date current code 
     and replacement parts are difficult to obtain.

  Let me close by saying I have made it clear in my comments that those 
of us who oppose the Arctic Wildlife Refuge do not oppose drilling.
  We embrace drilling in many parts of our country as an ongoing need 
for 30 to 50 years of this country's future. We will remain oil 
dependent, despite even our best efforts, if we were to make our best 
efforts. I have suggested that we need an organizing principle for our 
energy future that does what makes economic sense. We should not make 
choices that don't make economic sense, and we do not have to lower the 
quality of life of any American.
  We heard debate on the floor of the Senate a few weeks ago about what 
kind of cars people were going to be ``forced'' to drive. No American 
is ever going to be forced to drive any kind of car if we do what we 
need to do with respect to the future. If you want to drive a big SUV 
or a huge truck to take your kids to soccer games, go ahead, 
absolutely. I think most soccer moms in America are outraged that cars 
get as little mileage for the gasoline as they do. They would love to 
pay less when going to the gas station to fill up.
  All of that technology is available to us to allow people to drive 
the car of their choice that is more efficient. There are many choices 
available to us. We can drill in those 7,000 leases in the deepwater 
drilling of the Gulf of Mexico. I have gone through the long list of 
the Arctic leases that were available that were put out last year. The 
largest oil and gasoline lease in the history of our Nation, just over 
a year ago, was 950,000 acres on the North Slope. They have scheduled 
15 oil and gas leases on 15 million acres now. The third lease sale of 
a planning area of 10 million acres is coming right down the road.
  We don't need to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and destroy the 
concept of a pristine refuge in order to accomplish our goals of, in 
fact, being independent or improving the national security of our 
country. That is really the choice here, for all of us in the Senate: 
Whether we will respect this concept until we find 15, 20, 30 years 
from now that we leaders of the country have not made wise choices with 
respect to the alternatives and renewables, alternative means of 
propelling our automobiles.
  I was just out at the National Energy Alternative Renewable Energy 
Lab in Colorado meeting with Admiral Truly. They are doing 
extraordinary work. They say if the United States were to put in more 
effort and ratchet up our research on alternative propulsion, 
alternative heating, and other mechanisms, we could significantly 
advance the curve in this country.
  We have not been serious about that. The only thing we appear to be 
serious about thus far is continuing the dependency that has put us 
into this problem in the first place.
  So I hope my colleagues will take advantage of this vote, which 
represents an opportunity to suggest that our value system in this 
country, and our sense of economics, and our sense of security are 
well-grounded and well-placed with respect to the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge.

[[Page 4826]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to 
the Senator from Massachusetts. He is a friend. I have visited his home 
and I have great love for his wife. I find it very interesting that the 
Senator from Massachusetts has discussed about every other creature of 
the world but has never talked about the people of the Arctic Slope. He 
never talked about the Eskimo. In fact, despite repeated requests to go 
to the area, he has never been there. He has never been there. As a 
concept, I find it hard to understand my friend's continued reference 
to the ``wilderness area'' and drilling in a ``wilderness area.''
  The 1\1/2\ million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain is not a 
wilderness area and was never designated as a wilderness area. Drilling 
there would not be drilling in a wilderness area. It is unfortunate 
that the Senator, and others, continue to say that because it 
represents a breach of faith.
  Paul Tsongas, in fact, did offer four amendments to the 1980 act. One 
of them he withdrew. It was on the Coastal Plain. There was a 
compromise on the Coastal Plain. I, too, am sad that Senator Paul 
Tsongas and Senator Scoop Jackson are not here because, were they here, 
they would say a deal is a deal.
  We passed out the letter that Senator Jackson authored with Senator 
Hatfield, which is on every Senator's desk, which says:

       One-third of our known petroleum reserves are in Alaska, 
     along with an even greater proportion of our potential 
     reserves. Actions such as preventing even the exploration of 
     the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, a ban sought by one amendment, is 
     an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our Nation in this 
     time of energy crisis.

  That is the letter signed by Senators Jackson and Hatfield in 1980.
  Fair is fair. I will talk about the senatorial courtesies and the 
prerogatives of the past. Right now I want to answer my friend. At one 
time during his comments he said British Petroleum does not seek to 
explore in ANWR. Am I hearing right? There has been no such 
announcement by British Petroleum. It is one of the major producing 
entities in the North Slope now and, as far as I know, it has never 
been the concept of seeking the right to proceed with the commitment to 
explore the 1\1/2\ million acres covered by the section 1002 in the 
1980 act.
  The Senator talked about jobs. That is wonderful. We like that. The 
Senator talked about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and he wants to 
develop the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. He has had that 
opportunity since he has been in the Senate. Nobody has proceeded at 
all with that. We have tried to get that done. We have not been able to 
do it. It is like the rest of Alaska. People say it is wilderness 
because it is undeveloped. It is not wilderness in the legal sense, 
unless it is classified as ``wilderness.''
  So far as I know, it is not possible for that statement to be made on 
the floor of the Senate--that we would drill in wilderness if we were 
to drill in the 1002 area of the Arctic Coastal Plain.
  The Senator from Massachusetts belabored, I think, the CAFE standards 
concept. It would be three times the savings, he says, of ANWR. Well, 
ANWR doesn't persist in savings; ANWR is production. Beyond that, CAFE 
standards deal with gasoline. We are dealing with oil. Mr. President, 
44 percent of a barrel of oil becomes gasoline; 56 percent is refined 
for other products. You can have all the CAFE standards you want. If 
you want the other products, you have to refine a barrel of oil. There 
is too much talk here about gasoline being oil. One time the Senator 
from Massachusetts said 70 percent of the oil goes into transportation. 
That is not so at all. Maybe 70 percent of the gasoline goes into 
transportation, but it is not oil. In fact, the bulk of the oil goes 
for a lot of things, including home fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, and 
lubricants. I wonder how far our aircraft would fly if we stopped 
refining a barrel of oil to get jet fuel. You would still have the part 
of the barrel that would make gasoline.
  I remind those who are looking at this chart that these are items 
made from oil--from toothpaste to deodorants, footballs, lifejackets, 
pantyhose, lipstick, dentures, and they all come from a barrel of oil.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. I did not interrupt the Senator.
  Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator want to have a dialog?
  Mr. STEVENS. I will have a dialog when the time comes.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. A real problem is the people who really take advantage 
of the Nation when we are evenly divided, the minority of the 
population--2 percent--which represents these radical 
environmentalists. The Democratic Party sees fit to seek to win 
elections by preventing us from proceeding with the prospect of 
discovering oil on the Arctic Plain, but it has not been a traditional 
position of that party because, obviously, the two people who reserved 
this area were, in fact, Democratic Senators--Senator Jackson and 
Senator Tsongas. They were Democratic Senators. They entered into a 
commitment with us that this area would be explored, and if it proved 
to be not a situation where irreparable harm would occur on the Arctic 
Plain, this area would then be faced with a request from the President 
and the Secretary of the Interior to proceed with oil and gas leasing.
  Oil and gas leasing is prohibited at the present time. We know that. 
It is prohibited by law. The 1980 act prohibited oil and gas leasing in 
this area until the procedure is followed. This is the procedure. It 
has taken us 21 years to get to this point.
  This is the ``Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource 
Assessment Recommendation to Congress and Legislative Environmental 
Impact Statement'' required by the law of 1980. It demonstrates that 
there would be no irreparable harm to this area if oil and gas leasing 
would proceed.
  I have some real problems with what is going on here. I want to talk 
about them at length later. I understand the Senator from Texas wishes 
to speak, so I will be glad to yield to her when she is ready.
  These people, the Eskimos, the Inupiats who live on the North Slope, 
seek this decision by Congress. They want this area to be explored. 
Their schools, their roads, and their future depend upon jobs. This is 
their area. They believe it can be done safely. They even own some of 
the land up there.
  Mr. President, did you know they are prohibited from drilling on 
their own land, land they received from the Federal Government in 
settlement of their claims? There is no question--no question--that 
these people want to proceed.
  The Senator was referring to this land as wilderness. Those people 
live right there. This is the village that is within what the Senator 
from Massachusetts calls wilderness. This is not wilderness. This is 
the home of the Inupiat people, the Eskimo people of Alaska.
  There are some Alaska Natives who live on the South Slope who really 
are part of the Canadian Indian nation known as Gwich'ins. They oppose 
this. We know that. They are probably up in the galleries now. They 
oppose it, but the Alaska Eskimos do not oppose it. They live there, 
and they want this development. They want to see it developed.
  The first time I went up to the North Slope, it was a very sad visit. 
It was back in the fifties. I tell you, they had a very small runway. 
Wiley Post crashed just north of there. We landed at this little 
village in which the people lived in terrible circumstances and 
conditions. They had no modern conveniences at all. I invite you to go 
up and take a look at Barrow--five-, six-, eight-story buildings with 
elevators, beautiful schools, a wonderful airport, tremendous people 
enjoying their lifestyle. They like the Arctic. That is their home. 
They like their opportunities now to have their feet in both the 
present and the past. They are wonderful people. They make tremendous 
citizens of the United States, and there is no question they want to 
proceed.

[[Page 4827]]

  I have a letter that went to Senators Daschle and Lott in April of 
this year from the Kaktovic Inupiat. This is a photograph of some of 
their children. They say they want the promises given to them. They 
want this area open. They are the only residents of the 19.6 million 
acres that were recognized within the boundaries of that refuge. They 
own some of the land. They own 92,160 acres of the land, and they are 
currently prohibited by the Federal Government from drilling on their 
land because of the situation in the 1002 area.
  They were told to wait until the approval was given by Congress to 
proceed in the whole area. They seek--and I hope before we are through, 
we will recognize their request--to use their own lands to determine 
whether or not beneath those lands there are oil and gas resources. 
That is another matter we will go into.
  They say:

       We don't have much, gentlemen, except for the promises of 
     the U.S. Government that the settlement of our land claims 
     against the United States would eventually lead to control of 
     our destiny by our people.

  That is denied now by the opposition of the majority party to this 
amendment that is before us.
  We believe this will be the largest oilfield on the North American 
Continent, somewhere in excess of 40 billion barrels of oil. We do not 
build paved roads; we build ice roads in these areas. It is true that 
on State lands, where Prudhoe Bay was discovered--those are State 
lands--they are subject to the construction of roads by the permission 
of the State of Alaska. It is an entirely different situation than 
being within the 1002 area which is subject to total control by the 
Federal Government.
  The House has already limited the use of this 1002 area, 1.5 million 
acres, to 2,000 acres of surface--2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres. 
That is what we are being denied the right to use.
  I do believe it is unfortunate that we have the concepts now of so 
many people who enjoy life and make so many studies from afar. They are 
making studies from all of these scientific organizations that are 
supported by these environmental organizations. I am going to talk 
about those later, Mr. President. I see two other Senators are in the 
Chamber.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be pleased to follow the Senator 
from Texas. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the understanding I may resume the 
floor later this afternoon, I will yield the floor to these Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator from Texas will speak, and then the 
Senator from Minnesota follows; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. In 
fact, I thank both Senators from Alaska for leading this very long 
fight to open up a very small portion of their State for the purpose of 
exploring and drilling to make America more stable in this crisis in 
which we find ourselves.
  I want to go back over what is in the Murkowski-Breaux amendment 
because I think if you listen to some of the debate, you will be 
confused.
  First, the key provision is a provision I put in this amendment early 
on that says the President must find that it is in our national 
economic and security interest to drill in ANWR. The President must 
consider the impact on increasing the independence we would have on 
foreign imports for our basic energy needs in this country.
  This amendment limits the size of production to 2,000 acres, and in 
that 2,000 acres it is confined to a part of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge that is plain. There are no trees and wilderness in 
this part of ANWR. We are talking about drilling on 2,000 acres in an 
area the size of the State of South Carolina, where there are no trees 
whatsoever.
  In addition, I think it is important to note that we have limited in 
this amendment when they can drill. They can drill between November and 
May, when the land is frozen. There would be ice roads and ice runways. 
The footprint on the land would be minimal to none because they would 
be using the ice roads rather than driving on the land.
  In addition to that, the caribou, which is an animal that mates 
throughout the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, mates during the 
summertime. There would be no drilling in the summertime. Any argument 
that this might in some way disrupt caribou mating is not a valid 
argument at all.
  There would be 1.5 million more acres of real wilderness that would 
be designated as wilderness where they could not drill--this is in 
addition to ANWR in exchange for opening this nonwilderness area of the 
Coastal Plain.
  It is a balanced amendment. The environment is protected. It is very 
important that we look at the environmental safeguards America would 
put on drilling in ANWR to assure that we will have environmental 
standards.
  This same reserve may well be drilled in Russia which is very close 
to Alaska, as we all know. About 20 miles separates them at their 
closest point.
  They could drill right across the coast from Alaska, and we do not 
know what their environmental safeguards would be. We certainly would 
not have control over them, and that would affect the Alaska coastline 
even more because we would not have control of the way Russia might 
decide to drill. They might not decide to drill only in the winter. 
They might not decide to put any limitations on the kinds of ships that 
would come in and out of the water. I think that maintaining control is 
the better environmental argument.
  ANWR would produce at least a million barrels a day. That is about 
the amount we import from Iraq every day. The percentage of the U.S. 
oil needs that would be met by ANWR is nearly 5 percent. We consume 20 
million barrels of oil a day. We import 12 million of those barrels. We 
are right at 60 percent of our needs every day having to be met by 
imports. Our ANWR production would make up for 8 to 10 percent of our 
current imports.
  I heard the Senator from Massachusetts say this is going to be a drop 
in the bucket for our energy needs; that this really gets us nowhere. 
So why would we do it?
  We would do it because we need to do everything we can to maintain 
our own stability and to look to ourselves for our economic and 
security needs. I would rather be looking at American jobs with 
American resources, American production and American control than to 
say 60 percent imports for our needs is OK. I especially think that the 
argument falls flat when we realize that the 60 percent includes some 
of America's known worst enemies, such as Iraq. Iraq has threatened 
America before; so have some of the other countries from whom we import 
oil. Then there are countries with whom we have great friendships, such 
as Venezuela. They also send us about a million barrels a day but they 
are in upheaval. There are strikes and the government is in a very 
precarious situation. So while we would certainly count Venezuela as a 
friend, they are not as reliable right now as we need to have.
  I think we need to look at this whole ANWR issue in light of the 
circumstances. I have always felt that America needed an energy policy 
that depended on our own resources. Today, it is no longer an option. 
It is no longer a matter of good public policy; it is a necessity. It 
is a matter of national security that we control our own economy.
  If countries, that would do us harm, could say ``we will stop 
exporting oil to America and shut down their factories, keep them from 
being able to drive to work, shoot the prices so high the airline 
industry starts to crater,'' then are we not going to beat them from 
within? Maybe we do not have to beat them from without because if their 
economy starts sinking we are going to win. Of course, they are right.
  If we allow that to happen, we are not responsible stewards of our 
country.

[[Page 4828]]

  Iraq has, in fact, said they are going to stop exporting oil that 
could come to America. With Iraq using this as a weapon, and other 
countries possibly doing the same, or deciding that perhaps they cannot 
export any more because of their internal situations, then what are we 
going to do if we have not planned ahead?
  The Senator from Massachusetts says we should conserve our way out of 
the crisis, but let's look at that. The 10 most fuel-efficient 
automobiles in America make up 1.5 percent of the automobile sales in 
America. In America, we have long distances to drive. In America, 
people have big families, and we know a heavier car is safer than a 
small car. So it would seem the Senator from Massachusetts would demand 
that people have only the choice of an unsafe car, that is not the one 
they want for their families, as a way to become more stable in our 
economy.
  I fundamentally disagree with him that this is the right approach. I 
think we need to look to our own resources as part of a balanced 
package that would keep our country strong.
  I think we should have incentives for more fuel-efficient 
automobiles, so that if people make that choice of their own free will, 
and if that meets their family's needs, they would be able to do that 
and maybe even get a tax credit for it. I think we need to look for 
alternative forms of energy. I think we have walked away from nuclear 
powerplants, which are known to be the most clean and effective ways to 
produce electricity. I think there are new things we will be able to 
find in the future, such as ethanol, hopefully, becoming more 
reasonably priced; other forms of wind energy that certainly could 
produce electricity, not in the great amounts we need at this time, but 
I think Americans are ingenious and we will find other sources. But 
that should not be all we need to do.
  We need to have a balanced plan that also allows us to produce the 
amount of energy we would need to keep our country strong. The major 
sources of oil in this country are ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. We are 
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but we have not yet found the 
technology to go as deep as we would need to go in parts of the Gulf of 
Mexico to tap the added resources that might be available there. We do 
however certainly have the capability to look to that resource as well. 
In the Senate bill, we do not try to help get the Gulf of Mexico oil. 
No. The House bill allows us to continue the royalty help that we give 
for deep drilling in the Gulf because it is more expensive and takes 
more research and exploration.
  Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana passed a royalty relief bill 
that takes the first part of oil royalties from deep well drilling in 
the Gulf. It abates those royalties in order to create an incentive for 
companies to add that expense of drilling in that deep Gulf area. That 
credit lapsed and is no longer in effect. The House energy bill puts 
that back in play.
  We should do that. That is a valid incentive because it would produce 
more oil in the Gulf.
  In the Senate bill, there is very little about production, aside from 
the marginal well tax credits which were my in bill. I have fought for 
the marginal well tax credits for a long time. I am pleased that they 
are in the bill because the marginal well tax credits could help the 
marginal, small, little bitty wells to give them a floor so that anyone 
willing to go in and tap a site, that would produce only 15 barrels a 
day or less, would be able to withstand the falling prices. A number of 
those small wells were closed when oil was $11 a barrel a couple of 
years ago and they haven't been reopened because of the instability of 
the prices.
  If all the small wells are drilled and producing, we do have that 
credit in this bill which will equal the amount we import from Saudi 
Arabia. It is a significant amount. It takes 500,000 wells to do it. 
These are generally small businesspeople. That is good.
  Other than that, there is nothing in this bill that speaks to 
production. The House bill has the incentives for deep Gulf drilling, 
which I think is very important and I certainly hope will come out of 
the conference report if we can pass the bill before the Senate.
  The House has ANWR, which the Senate does not, and about which we are 
fighting and talking today. ANWR is a significant addition to our own 
national stability. The ability to control our destiny rests in ANWR 
and deep Gulf drilling. When you put those together with increasing 
nuclear capabilities, clean coal burning, wind, and other forms of 
renewables, a balanced package of conservation and production includes 
ANWR and the deep Gulf incentives.
  As we debate this, I hope some of our Members, who have said they are 
very concerned about drilling in ANWR, will look at the facts: ANWR has 
no trees in the part we will drill, it would only be done in the winter 
when you use ice roads and ice runways so there is no footprint on the 
land, where it would not hurt the environment, but, in fact, would be 
severely restricted by environmental concerns.
  If we are going to have affordable, reliable, and clean energy, we 
must have a balanced package. Not to pass a bill that gives the amount 
we import from Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Venezuela is hardly worth the 
effort because it wouldn't give enough stability to control our own 
destiny.
  It is essential we pass a bill that allows America to control our 
economy and will produce American jobs. We are talking hundreds of 
thousands of jobs. That, in itself, helps stabilize our economy. That 
is why the Teamsters Union and the building and trade unions have been 
so helpful in this effort. I have never seen a union so committed and 
so sincere and work so hard as the Teamsters to try to keep these jobs 
in America. We have lost many jobs, thousands of jobs, since September 
11.
  These are good-paying jobs that would become available if we drill in 
ANWR and in the deep Gulf--not only the jobs on the rigs themselves, 
but all of the companies that produce the pipe, all of the companies 
that produce the oil-well supplies.
  It would be a huge boost to our economy. However, most importantly, 
it would stabilize our economy from oil price spikes that will hurt our 
airline industry, that will hurt our factories, that will hurt 
profitability and start causing more layoffs if we do not get control.
  I thank my colleagues for finally allowing this amendment to come 
forward. It is our responsibility to pass this amendment for the 
limited exploration in ANWR with the environmental safeguards and with 
the very specific times that assure we would not have a footprint on 
the land. This is our responsibility. It is a national security issue. 
It is an economic issue. If we don't look out for America, who will? 
This is the Senate of America and we must look out for the people, for 
the jobs, for the security of our country. That is what we have been 
elected to do. It is our job and it is time to step up to the plate and 
do the right thing for the people who have put their trust in us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I have spoken with the two managers of the bill. I would 
like to propound a unanimous consent request that Senator Wellstone be 
recognized for 20 minutes, Senator Lieberman for 20 minutes, Senator 
Bond for 20 minutes, and Senator Lott for 10 minutes, in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, when I first came to the Senate, my 
first year here in 1991, I think with Senator Lieberman and Senator 
Baucus, we started a filibuster against well drilling in ANWR. We 
succeeded. I am proud to be part of this effort as well.
  With all due respect, as I listen to some of my colleagues speak, 
they make the case we need to do this for our own national security; we 
need to do this for energy independence; we need to do it for our 
consumers. I think it has precisely the opposite effect.
  We are talking, altogether, the equivalent of what the United States 
consumes for 6 months. We are talking about oil that is not recoverable 
for another 10 years. And we are also talking

[[Page 4829]]

about continuing to barrel down this oil path, this fossil fuel path, 
which is destructive to our environment.
  I am an environmental Senator from the State of Minnesota. I am 
concerned about global warming. In many ways, it is not our future. 
There is a different future.
  I come from a State, for example, a cold weather State at the other 
end of the pipeline. When we import barrels of oil or MCFs of natural 
gas, we export billions of dollars. Last year our energy bill was 
between $10 and $11 billion, but we have wind, biodiesel and ethanol, 
biomass electricity, saved energy, efficient energy use, and clean 
technology and small business. There is another direction that we can 
go. There is simply no reason to destroy a pristine wildlife refuge. 
There is no reason to do this environmental damage.
  One of the most moving meetings I ever had was with the Gwich'in 
people who live on the land. They made the appeal to me as a Senator 
out of their sense of environmental justice not to let this oil 
drilling go forward.
  This whole idea of energy independence for America, based upon 
another idea that we drill our way to independence, makes no sense. The 
United States of America has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but 
we use 25 percent of the world's supply. Saudi Arabia has 46 percent of 
the world's supply.
  On each point, I take my colleagues to task. I don't think we get 
more energy independence from this. I don't think we get lower prices 
for consumers. I don't think we do better for our environment. Frankly, 
this proposal represents not a big step forward but a big leap 
sideways, at best.
  On the jobs count, we can go back and forth and back and forth. 
Senator Kerry spoke; Senator Lieberman will speak. I know what the 
American Petroleum Institute has said about the jobs. I also know when 
we look at the Congressional Research Service, which we all look to as 
an independent research organization, we are talking about 60,000 jobs.
  If you move down another path where you are not so dependent on big 
oil and where you really look at renewable energy and saved energy, it 
is much more labor intensive, it is much more small business intensive. 
It creates many more jobs, and it is much more respectful of the 
environment. It keeps capital in our communities. That is the marriage 
we ought to make here on the floor of the Senate. We don't need to be 
doing the bidding of these big oil companies any longer.
  In part 2 of my presentation--I will stay under 20 minutes because 
there are many Senators who want to speak--I want to turn my attention 
to a portion of this amendment, the second-degree amendment, which 
purports to address the very serious problem of legacy costs of 
steelworkers or, in my State, taconite workers--that is to say, people 
who are retired and who are losing their health care benefits and their 
insurance benefits.
  We need to respond to this pain. I am a part of a real effort, a 
bipartisan effort with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Specter, to deal 
with legacy costs and to provide the help to people. This amendment on 
this bill is not authentic. It is not a real effort. In many ways I 
cannot think of an amendment I am more in opposition to because I 
think, frankly, it takes advantage of the pain of people and the hopes 
of people, it is an amendment that does not do the job.
  Why in the world are we now being told on the floor of the Senate the 
only way we can get relief to thousands of steelworker retirees around 
the Nation, where their health benefits and their life insurance is in 
jeopardy, is by tying it to what the oil industry wants to do in 
Alaska? I would like to know who made that linkage, and how anyone can 
argue that is the only way we can help steelworkers, retired 
steelworkers, or, for that matter, whether or not this, in fact, is 
even a real effort.
  Let me explain. The amendment does not deliver on the promise. 
Senators come out here and say the only way we can do this is from the 
royalty from the oil drilling. The Senator from Alaska says the legacy 
costs could be as high as $18 billion. I think the costs are about $14 
billion over 10 years. Drilling in ANWR cannot produce those kinds of 
Federal revenues. This amendment dedicates much of the ANWR revenue to 
other purposes.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan CBO, less 
than $1 billion of the revenue from ANWR is going to be available, in 
this amendment, to pay for steelworker legacy costs over 10 years. In 
other words, less than one-tenth of what the CBO says we need to cover 
these legacy costs for steelworkers, for the taconite workers who are 
the steelworkers in northern Minnesota--less than one-tenth of what we 
need is covered by this amendment. And that presupposes the House 
Republican leadership would sign onto it--they have not--and that this 
administration would sign on to it. They have not.
  So what we have here is a little bit of sleight of hand, where you 
get oil drilling for ANWR in the House bill--it is in there--and in the 
Senate bill. You get less than one-tenth of what we need for legacy 
costs. That is all you get. But you do not have any prior agreement 
from the House Republican leadership, and they take it out in 
conference. You do not have any prior agreement from the White House. 
They take it out in conference.
  I have to tell you, this is in many ways this amendment tells a 
horrible story. The steelworkers, hard-working people--the range has 
seen tremendous pain. LTV workers are out of work. This doesn't help 
people out of work now who are also losing their health care benefits. 
But for retirees, it says we can help you, but the only way is if you 
go along with what the oil industry wants, and if you look at the fine 
print, you find out this doesn't meet more than one-tenth of the cost.
  Where is the commitment from the White House? Where is the commitment 
from the Republican leadership? I tell you what, we will bring a bill 
out to the floor which will cover legacy costs. Then all Senators get a 
chance to vote on it. Then we can decide who wants to provide the help 
to people.
  By the way, it is also help to an industry that simply is not going 
to be able to compete without our doing so.
  I want to say, the second-degree amendment--it is so interesting. I 
have another piece here. There actually will be no oil produced on 
lease on the Coastal Plain which will be imported except to Israel. 
There is even language of oil for Israel. Oil for Israel, legacy costs 
for steelworkers--although not really. It is not real. But this seems 
to me to represent the old politics where you are trying everything to 
get the votes. You do not know what else to do so you start adding on 
all these other amendments, and you think you can buy off this group of 
people or buy off this vote or get this vote or get this vote.
  I am a Senator from Minnesota. I want to make the final distinction 
between a real effort and my position on ANWR so it is clear. I am 
opposed to the oil drilling. I led a filibuster when I first came here. 
I am opposed to it now. I will vote against oil drilling in ANWR, 
period.
  The second distinction, I am for a real effort to deal with the 
legacy costs of retired steelworkers. We have to. I am working with a 
bipartisan group of Senators who are equally committed.
  If we want to talk about what kind of revenue we are going to need, 
it is going to be, over 10 years, about $14 billion. There is less than 
$1 billion revenues from actually ANWR revenues to cover the legacy 
costs. That doesn't do the job.
  The steelworkers know this and they have said so. We don't need to be 
doing the bidding of the oil companies to help the steelworkers. We can 
do that on our own. We can do that right here on the floor of the 
Senate.
  When we bring the legislation out, it will be a tough fight. I do not 
know where the administration will be. Frankly, I think we need their 
commitment first because if we do not get their commitment first, we 
will never be able to provide it. It will be $14 billion over 10 years. 
We have to do it for the industry, for this industry to have a chance, 
an industry that is so important to the national security of our

[[Page 4830]]

country. This is a national security question. But we also have to do 
it to make sure we get the help to people who have worked so hard all 
their lives.
  Where is the administration on this? I have not heard the 
administration commit itself to anywhere close to the amount of revenue 
we are going to need to cover legacy costs. The silence of the White 
House on this question is deafening. The silence on the part of the 
House Republican leadership is deafening. And the effort to have an 
amendment attached onto this amendment which purports to help taconite 
workers on the Iron Range but which really does not--as opposed to the 
real effort and the real fight which we will make--troubles me.
  There are too many people and too much pain. People are hurting. We 
should not be playing around with this.
  The second-degree amendment deserves to be defeated. The underlying 
amendment deserves to be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
cloture, and I believe we will have a strong vote against cloture.
  I yield the floor.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Minnesota for what is, for him, a characteristically truthful, 
passionate, and in some senses, courageous statement. But it is typical 
of his service here. I thank him and all the others of our colleagues 
who have joined in this filibuster to stop the drilling for oil in the 
Arctic Refuge.
  I must say for myself, in the 13 years now that I have been in the 
Senate, I cannot remember the last time I said I would participate or 
proclaim to participate in the leadership of a filibuster. But I have 
done that in this case because I remember what Senator Byrd instructed 
us on some time ago--that the purpose of the filibuster, which is to 
say the requirement for a supermajority to proceed with 60 votes, is to 
prevent us from allowing the passions of the moment to sweep through 
Congress and become law and do lasting damage to America's values and 
interests.
  If there ever was an example of how the temporary passions of a 
moment, if responded to in law, could do permanent damage to our great 
country, its values, and interests, quite literally, then this debate 
over the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is exactly 
that.
  I rise to oppose the amendments before us and oppose the motion for 
cloture. This proposal has been before us for a long time. I remember 
discussing it in my campaign for the Senate in 1988. It has risen and 
fallen over the years, but the basic heart of it remains wrong. It is 
to develop one of the most beautiful places in America, the Coastal 
Plain of the Arctic Refuge, known as the American Serengeti, inhabited 
by 135 species of birds and 45 species of land animals. The Plain 
crosses all five different ecoregions of the Arctic.
  To take this magnificent, unspoiled piece of nature and develop it 
for what? For a very small amount of oil no sooner than a decade from 
now, which will not do what all of us say we want to do, which is to 
break our dependence on foreign oil. And it will provide no price 
relief to American consumers of gas and oil.
  The fact remains that drilling in the refuge would not produce a drop 
of oil for a decade--far beyond the time of the current crisis in the 
Middle East which some have tried to use to gain support for this 
proposal to drill; and, even then, after the decade, far too little to 
change in any meaningful way our dependency on foreign oil.
  Even if we did allow the drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge, this 
administration's own Energy Department concluded that drilling in the 
Arctic Refuge would only reduce our dependence on oil by 2 percent 20 
years from now. That is in the year 2020 or thereabouts. We would 
depend on foreign sources of oil for 60 percent of the oil we use 
instead of 62 percent. Is that 2 percent worth destroying this 
beautiful piece of America?
  The fact is, even if the oil were coming out of ANWR, notwithstanding 
suggestions to the contrary, it would be priced at world prices. So 
there wouldn't be any relief given to America's consumers if we allowed 
the drilling for oil. No, the only way for us to remove our economy 
from the troubles in the Middle East that are going on now or that may 
go on in years ahead is to end our dependence on foreign oil.
  As my colleagues have said over and over again, we don't have much 
oil left within American control and within America's land--3 percent 
of the world's reserves of which we use 25 percent every year. It is 
just not there. Therefore, if we want to break our dependence on 
foreign oil, as mighty a nation as we are militarily and economically, 
if we want to truly remain strong and invulnerable to pressure from 
nations that are weaker than we are but have oil within their land, 
then we have to break our addiction on oil. We have to develop new 
sources of energy. We have to conserve more. We have to use the gifts 
of ingenuity and technology that have created so many miracles in our 
time to help us power our society and our economy in a way that is not 
only cleaner than oil but, most important to the moment, is within our 
control and our possession. Surely, we can do it.
  As part of doing this, I say, as so many others who oppose drilling 
for oil in the Arctic Refuge have said, we are not opposed to all 
development of America's energy resources. Far from it. While we must 
move beyond our dependence on fossil fuels, we cannot do it 
immediately, requiring us to continue to pursue supplies of oil, and 
particularly to pursue supplies of fuel. In fact, may I say as a 
Democrat that I am proud that the Clinton administration actually 
leased more land for energy development than either the Reagan or 
previous Bush administrations.
  But those decisions were evaluated, such as the decisions we shall 
make and should make in the future, which is to determine the 
environmental impact of that exploration--to hold the test up. How much 
energy will we get? What damage will it do to our environment? By that 
test, the Arctic Refuge does not pass.
  Let me show my colleagues a map of the North Slope of Alaska. Here is 
this very small area of the Coastal Plain. That is what our colleagues 
from Alaska want to be able to drill. Compare it to all the rest of 
this that is now open and, in many cases, already leased for oil 
exploration. This is a very small part of that area. There is very 
active exploration and drilling going on in the rest.
  We are not asking to take out every possibility of development in 
enormous swaths of land. The fact is, companies have made promising new 
discoveries at the locations in blue that I have just indicated. For 
example, last winter Phillips announced major discoveries of three 
significant oilfields in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The 
oil companies have plans to drill up to 59 exploration wells over the 
next 5 years. None of that is going to be affected by our desire to 
stop these amendments, which aim to get into that last very special and 
important area to preserve.
  What about that small green section in the corner of the map that I 
pointed to? The so-called 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge is the small 
biological heart of the ecosystem. Again, we are not asking for the 
entire North Slope to be protected. We only ask for the small piece of 
land that serves as the most essential and vital habitat in the region. 
Much to the contrary of what has been argued, the area is not even the 
most promising of the North Slope for exploration for oil.
  Let me quote from comments of an oil industry consultant in a recent 
New York Times article:

       There is still a fair amount of exploration risk here: You 
     could go through eight years of litigation, a good amount of 
     investment, and still come up with dry holes or uneconomic 
     discoveries.

  Listen to the comments of a spokesman for BP Alaska:

       Big oil companies go where there are substantial fields and 
     where they can produce oil economically. Does ANWR have that? 
     Who knows?

  We owe it to the American people to determine whether the measure 
before

[[Page 4831]]

us is responsible and responsive to our energy needs or whether it is 
simply a distraction that threatens to bring down the 400-plus pages of 
good energy policy contained in the underlying bill.
  To determine that, I think we need only to ask a very businesslike, 
very American question: What do we gain and what do we lose? I can tell 
you what we would gain in less than a minute. It would take days to 
catalog what we would lose. We are prepared, if necessary, to take 
those days to stop this authorization to drill in the Arctic Refuge.
  What we would gain I have talked about. It would take at least 10 
years, and then there would be, 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 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.
  The unseen damage of drilling would be just as real: a nation--our 
Nation--lulled into believing it has taken a step toward energy 
independence, when it has done no such thing; a nation believing it is 
extracting oil using so-called ``environmentally sensitive'' methods 
when it will not--all in all, the American people misled in both 
meanings of that term, not appreciating the reality, and also a failure 
of leadership by those of us who are privileged to serve here in 
Washington.
  Finally, this plan would violate some of our most treasured American 
values. I speak particularly of the values of conservation. This plan 
presents a false promise of job creation, a false promise of economic 
stimulus, a false promise of energy independence, and a false promise 
of environmental sensitivity.
  The first claim my colleagues make is that drilling in the Arctic is 
a necessary part of a balanced, long-term energy strategy. But, I say 
respectfully, calling drilling in the Arctic Refuge part of a strategic 
energy plan is like calling 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. But we do have such a proposal which would 
take aggressive and strategic steps in pursuit of new sources of energy 
and better conservation; and that is the underlying bill fashioned by 
Senator Bingaman, Senator Daschle, and others working with them. It 
would provide us with the resources we need in the short term by 
measures such as expediting the natural gas pipeline from Alaska and 
providing the resources necessary to process the many lands already 
leased for exploration.
  I want to share with my colleagues a few words on the question of the 
effect that drilling in the Arctic might have on jobs because that is 
an argument that has been made.
  Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will actually create fewer jobs than 
dozens of the smarter alternatives that would create new industries 
using American technology that will be encouraged by the underlying 
bill. The much quoted study claiming that the Arctic drilling would 
result in 750,000 jobs has since been widely discredited. Even its 
authors have acknowledged its methodology was flawed.
  The real job creation figure, in my opinion, is much closer to 
45,000. Those jobs are short term, most of them in construction, as 
opposed to the permanent jobs that would be created by new energy 
industries, new energy technology industries created all over America.
  In order to try to settle this question, the Joint Economic Committee 
looked at the question and found that the proposal would result in 
modest employment gains, peaking at an estimated 65,000 new jobs 
nationwide in the year 2020. That would be an increase in projected 
employment by less than one-tenth of 1 percent over that time--
certainly nothing to sacrifice a national treasure for, particularly 
when we have so many better, new energy alternatives that will create 
so many more longer lasting jobs.
  I would like to say a word about the oil prices impact from drilling 
in the Arctic because American consumers are sensitive and, 
appropriately, accustomed to being concerned about the effect of world 
political and economic events on oil pricing and gasoline pricing and 
may be deceived into thinking that if we drill for oil in the Arctic 
Refuge, we will be protected from international oil price fluctuations.
  Drilling would have no impact on U.S. oil prices, even under the 
inflated estimates for petroleum potential that are cited by drilling 
advocates because the price of oil is determined by broad, global 
supply and demand, not by the presence or absence of an individual 
oilfield.
  Let's look, for example, at the case of Prudhoe Bay. In 1976--the 
year before the largest oilfield ever discovered in North America 
entered production--a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil sold 
for $12.65 and standard gasoline averaged--I take a deep breath here--
59 cents a gallon. That was 1976.
  Two years later, with Prudhoe Bay now adding more than 2 million 
barrels a day to domestic supply, in 1978, West Texas Intermediate 
crude had increased by more than 15 percent to $14.85 a barrel and 
gasoline averaged 63 cents a gallon. It went up. During the next 2 
years, as Prudhoe Bay production increased, oil prices also skyrocketed 
to $37.37 per barrel, while gasoline nearly doubled to $1.19 a gallon--
all because of world oil prices.
  This obviously does not demonstrate a relationship between Alaskan 
oil and gasoline prices that will be paid around the world.
  In closing, I want to get back to what this all says about our values 
and the choices we have to make. The question is, Are we willing to 
destroy a habitat that is home to so much beauty and wildlife and 
deprive future generations of visiting and experiencing this 
magnificent part of our country in return for what will slightly--2 
percent out of 62 percent--reduce our dependence on foreign oil two 
decades from now and will not affect the price the American people will 
pay for gasoline and oil?
  I think the answer has to be no. Wilderness and the oil industry 
cannot peacefully coexist, certainly not in this case. So we are forced 
to make a choice. I have made mine. I believe the American people 
agree. Why? Because conserving our great open spaces is fundamentally 
an affirmation of our core American values. Conservation is not a 
Democratic or Republican value; it is a quintessentially American 
value.
  What lesson does it teach the generations that come after us if we go 
ahead with this terrible mistake of drilling in the Arctic Refuge? That 
we, as Americans, did not value our national heritage? That we did not 
conserve it for future generations of Americans? That we sold it for, 
essentially, effectively, the equivalent of a barrel of oil?
  The ethic of conservation tells us it is not only sentimentally 
difficult to part with beautiful wilderness, it is practically unwise, 
because in doing so we deny future generations a priceless piece of our 
common culture.
  Let me close with the words of a great President, a great American, a 
great conservationist, and a great Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. In 
1916, he said this:

       The ``greatest good for the greatest number'' applies to 
     the number within the 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.

  That is a quote from the great T.R.
  They live and breathe with as much wisdom today as they did in 1916. 
In addition to all of the pluses and minuses and balances and 
statistics, they are the ultimate reason why we should reject these 
amendments to allow for the drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to discuss what I think is 
one of the most important issues our Nation faces, and that is national 
security.

[[Page 4832]]

  Yes, this is an energy bill. More specifically, we are talking about 
an amendment to drill for oil in a small remote region of Alaska. What 
does that have to do with national security? Let's set the stage 
because the facts are getting lost in some wonderful rhetoric that 
takes me away in a dream world. I don't recognize the place I know as 
Alaska when I listen to it.
  We have tried to put out the facts. I have heard other things that 
are not quite so factual. Just as a beginning, over the next 20 years, 
U.S. oil consumption is projected to grow even after factoring in a 
projected 26-percent increase in renewable energy supply, which we 
strongly support, and a 29-percent increase in efficiency. Some people 
think that is outrageous. Some people have a terrible guilt trip that 
the United States uses so much oil we don't have enough, so we ought to 
give up.
  Drilling in ANWR reasonably could almost double our reserves. The 
United States has about 22 billion barrels of proven reserves, 3 
percent of the world's reserves. ANWR could hold 16 billion barrels of 
oil more. That is almost doubling. It is adding 16 to 22 billion in our 
reserves.
  We use oil. There is no question about it. We have 5 percent of the 
world's population. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. But we also 
produce 31.5 percent of the world's total economic output. We are more 
efficient than the world as a whole, and we produce food and medicine 
and goods to improve the lives of Americans and people around the 
globe.
  Let's be serious. When we are talking about the fact that we use oil, 
yes, we do. There is no question about it. We need to make sure we have 
adequate oil reserves.
  We just heard some information from the Energy Information 
Administration that is a little outdated. There is more recently a 
letter of March 22 to Senator Murkowski from Mary Hutzler, Acting 
Administrator for Energy Information. I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of the letter and the addendum be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         Department of Energy,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 2002.
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Energy and Natural 
         Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Murkowski: Enclosed is a response to your 
     March 21, 2002, request for more information from our Service 
     Report, ``The Effects of the Alaska Oil and Natural Gas 
     Provisions of H.R. 4, and S. 1766 on U.S. Energy Markets.'' 
     The information provided relates to an increase in U.S. oil 
     production, a decrease in net petroleum imports, and the 
     change in net import expenditures across the range of cases 
     explored in the Report.
       The projections show that all of the increase in U.S. oil 
     production from opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
     (ANWR) to oil development comes from increased Alaska 
     production, rather than lower 48 production, regardless of 
     the size of the oil resource assumed to be contained in ANWR. 
     The size of the resource assumed to be in ANWR also has an 
     effect on imports. The larger the ANWR resource base, the 
     greater is the reduction in petroleum imports. Reductions in 
     net expenditures on imported crude oil and petroleum products 
     range from $5.7 billion in the low ANWR resource case with a 
     reference case oil price path to $18.3 billion in 2020 (in 
     2000 dollars) in the high ANWR resource case with a high 
     world oil price path.
       If you have further questions, please contact me on (202) 
     586-6351.
           Sincerely,

                                              Mary J. Hutzler,

                                             Acting Administrator,
                                Energy Information Administration.
       Enclosure.

Addendum to the Effects of the Alaska Oil and Natural Gas Provisions of 
               H.R. 4 and S. 1766 on U.S. Energy Markets

       This addendum responds to a March 21, 2002, request from 
     Senator Frank H. Murkowski for more information from the 
     Energy Information Administration's Service Report, ``The 
     Effects of the Alaska Oil and Natural Gas Provisions of H.R. 
     4 and S. 1766 on U.S. Energy Markets.'' This addendum 
     provides projections on the increase in U.S. oil production, 
     the decease in net petroleum imports, and the change in net 
     petroleum expenditures across a range of cases.
       All of the increase in U.S. oil production from opening the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil development 
     comes from increased Alaska production, rather than lower 48 
     production, regardless of the size of the oil resource 
     assumed to be contained in ANWR. In 2020, the increase in 
     total domestic production ranges from 500,000 barrels per day 
     in the low resource ANWR case to 1.43 million barrels per day 
     in the high resource ANWR case (Table 1A). In 2020, ANWR is 
     projected to increase U.S. oil production by 8.9 percent in 
     the low resource case, compared to 25.4 percent in the high 
     resource case, compared to the Annual Energy Outlook 2002 
     (AEO2002) reference case.
       The size of the resource assumed to be in ANWR also has an 
     effect on petroleum import reductions. The larger the ANWR 
     resource base, the greater is the reduction in petroleum 
     imports. In 2020, the reduction in net imports of crude oil 
     and petroleum products is projected to range from 450,000 
     barrels per day in the low ANWR resource case to 1.39 million 
     barrels per day in the high ANWR resource case, compared to 
     the AEO2002 reference case. More than 80 percent of the 
     import reduction is from lower imports of crude oil, as 
     opposed to product imports.
       When combined with a high world oil price path, the opening 
     of ANWR has a similar impact on oil import reductions to the 
     opening of ANWR in a reference case (Table 2A). In the high 
     world oil price cases with mean and high ANWR resources, 
     import reductions in 2020 range from 780,000 to 1.32 million 
     barrels per day more than the high world oil price case 
     without ANWR. In the high ANWR resource case with high world 
     oil prices, oil consumption is reduced by half a million 
     barrels per day and about 70 percent of the import reduction 
     is from lower imports of crude oil.
       Reductions in expenditures on imported crude oil and 
     petroleum products range from $5.7 to $16.0 billion compared 
     to the reference case in 2020, depending on the amount of 
     resource in ANWR (in 2000 dollars). Like the volume changes, 
     more than 80 percent of the reduction comes from lower crude 
     oil imports. In the cases which assume the opening of ANWR 
     and high world oil prices, expenditures on oil imports are 
     $11.2 billion to $18.3 billion lower than the high world oil 
     price case without ANWR. The impact on expenditures is 
     greater in the high world oil price cases, because of higher 
     oil prices.

  Mr. BOND. They take a look at the estimates for oil produced at ANWR. 
And obviously, since it hasn't been drilled, we can only estimate. If 
it is not there, they won't drill. So this effort is all in vain, but I 
believe our U.S. Geological Survey and the other scientific experts 
have a pretty good idea.
  On average, if you take in the high and the low, U.S. Geological 
Survey says there would be an increase of domestic production by about 
14 percent. If you assume the high case, there could be an increase of 
25 percent of domestic production. And when you have this kind of 
production, this is what it means for us.
  People say that is not much oil. In Missouri, 71 years of consumption 
could be sustained by that; or Connecticut, 132 years; Minnesota, 85 
years. To say that is not significant misses the picture very badly.
  What would be our dependence upon foreign oil? Well, without ANWR in 
2020, the energy outlook is that 66.7 percent of our crude oil would 
come in from abroad. If you take the medium case, the medium production 
case, it would drop that to 62.2 percent. That is a 5-percent or 4-
percent reduction. If it is the high case, it would go down to 58.7 
percent, an 8-percent decline.
  Those percentages make a huge difference. They make the difference 
between whether we have a situation where we can manage it in tight 
consumption or whether we are up against the wall.
  The 1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain, called the 1002 area, of the 
19.6-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is one of the best 
places to look for the oil that America needs. When large chunks of 
Alaska were set aside in 1980, they saved a small 1.5-million-acre 
Coastal Plain out of 19.6 million acres. Why did they save it?
  Well, we have the letter of July 3, 1980, from Senator Hatfield and 
Chairman Henry Jackson. They were right when they wrote this in 1980. 
They said:

       One-third of our known petroleum reserves are in Alaska, 
     along with an even greater proportion of our potential 
     reserves. Action such as preventing even the exploration of 
     the Arctic Wildlife Range, a ban sought by one amendment, is 
     an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our nation in this 
     time of energy crisis.

  ``Ostrich-like approach,'' those are the words of Chairman Jackson. 
He said: This is an energy issue. It is a national defense issue. It is 
an economic

[[Page 4833]]

issue. It is not just an easy vote you can throw away and get some 
greenie points. Chairman Jackson concluded:

       It is a compelling national issue which demands the 
     balanced solutions crafted by the Energy and Natural 
     Resources Committee.

  The only regret I have today is that the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee did not have an opportunity to craft a bill because I am 
confident that they know the energy situation. And they would have said 
that this is a necessary step.
  The Energy Department said: The Coastal Plain is the largest 
unexplored, potentially productive onshore basin in the United States. 
The USGS estimates there are up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable 
oil, enough to offset Saudi imports for 30 years.
  The 1002 area is not a beautiful piece of America. Congress set it 
aside for oil exploration. The people who talk about this give these 
word pictures of a magnificent forest. I don't think they have been 
there. When I go back home, I ask anybody: Have you been to the North 
Slope? Do you know what it looks like?
  They tell me: No.
  I kid my colleagues from Oklahoma that it is as attractive as a 
frozen Oklahoma. Nobody I know has refused to drill for oil in Oklahoma 
because of its pristine beauty. I have been there. I have swatted away 
the mosquitos.
  This is what it looks like in the winter. My good friend, the senior 
Senator from Alaska, refers to it as the proverbial Hades. It is quite 
a few degrees colder.
  When I have been there in the middle of July, it has gone up to 38 or 
39 degrees, and there are those hardy souls who work out there in shirt 
sleeves, 39 degrees, because it is a heat wave.
  This is the best we can show you. This is what the 1002 area looks 
like. That is Kaktovik in the background. Look at this magnificent 
beautiful piece of Alaska. Look a little flat? Look a little same? It 
is. But it has its own beauty. It really does.
  One of the beauties is it has caribou and wildlife and birds, and 
they thrive up there. Here is a picture of drilling in Prudhoe Bay. 
This is Prudhoe Bay. If you can't see very well what it is, all these 
are caribou. The caribou herds thrive. The drilling does put permanent 
structures in there. But the temporary rock and gravel roads make a 
great place for caribou to calve. And the birds are there and the other 
wildlife is there.
  Somebody said we are going to destroy this great swath, this 
beautiful natural reserve in Alaska. Are we talking about the same 
thing? We are talking about 2,000 acres, roughly 3 square miles, out of 
the Coastal Plain of 30,600 square miles. That is less than the size of 
Dulles Airport and the State of South Carolina. It is 3 square miles 
out of 30,600 square miles. This was in the area consciously set aside, 
on a bipartisan basis, because Chairman Jackson and the people on the 
Energy Committee then realized that this was where we were going to 
have to get our natural resources.
  What would happen if we drilled and they found oil? It would mean 
700,000 jobs would be created across the United States--not from a 
Government make-work program, but from private investment.
  Wildlife habitat will be protected under the world's strictest and 
most environmental standards. To drill out there, you have to take all 
the equipment in, in the midwinter on ice roads, when it is 100 to 200 
degrees below zero. That is so cold that I cannot even think about it. 
But you do that so you don't disrupt the land.
  The caribou herd in and near Prudhoe Bay's oilfield is five times 
larger than when development began. It is five times larger. Prudhoe 
Bay is producing 20 percent of our Nation's oil production.
  Now, let me say one other thing. As a result of my personal visit up 
there, the people who live there, the indigenous people, the Native 
Alaskans, the people who live in the region, they understand that this 
is the way they can improve their lives. They can make a positive 
economic contribution to the welfare of this Nation and benefit from 
it. They begged us to allow them to go ahead and develop a resource 
that will not interfere with their fishing and their hunting and the 
wildlife around them.
  I heard it said that it would be 10 years before we got any oil. 
Well, it depends on how much Congress delays it, how many lawsuits. 
Perhaps as soon as 3 years after the first lease sale. There has 
already been discovery on State lands of an oilfield that extends under 
the Coastal Plain. We know it is there, just not how much. If the 
Congress were serious about it and we said we want to develop this in 
an environmentally sound manner and do it quickly, we could get it 
online.
  Contrary to a myth that many on the other side have spread, and as my 
friends from Alaska pointed out, we are not exporting the North Slope 
oil. None has been exported since May 2000. The average well at Prudhoe 
Bay produces over 550 barrels per day, more than 45 times the 12.5 
barrels of oil produced per day by the average oil well in the United 
States. If the oil in ANWR is locked up, a lot of wells will have to be 
drilled to replace it, or we will be back in the situation in which we 
found ourselves several weeks ago.
  By a very significant majority, 63 Members of this body, said we want 
to continue to be able to give American consumers the choice to drive 
SUVs, light pickup trucks, or vans. We ordered the Department of 
Transportation to use the best scientific and technological information 
available to push for increased oil and petroleum efficiency, gasoline 
combustion efficiency, and do everything we can to increase the 
efficiency. But don't force unrealistic standards that merely require 
us to move down to smaller and smaller cars until we are driving around 
in golf carts. If we are going to continue to supply the energy needs 
that my colleagues who voted with us on the CAFE amendment said we are 
going to need, we need the oil coming from ANWR. This is absolutely 
essential for our economy, for the sound development, the business of 
industry, and, most of all, to supply the transportation needs of our 
families.
  For each dollar of crude oil and natural gas brought to the market, 
there will be $2.25 of economic activity generated through the economy. 
The actual impact of the ANWR oil could be anywhere from $270 billion 
to $780 billion. These are all good economic arguments. But this is not 
the only question.
  Keeping the oil production in the United States means we are buying 
less oil from overseas. We keep our domestic dollars at home. These are 
U.S. dollars not going to foreign countries, with leaders who may be on 
a mission to destroy our entire existence.
  If that was too subtle for some colleagues, let me explain it. Just 
last week, we watched Iraq announced a month-long oil export embargo to 
protest Israel's response to the terror campaign. Some argue that Iraq 
only produces 1.5 billion barrels a day, roughly 4 percent of world 
production. We are told Saddam Hussein is only supplying 8 percent of 
U.S. imports. It ought to be time that we tell the American people this 
country can not and should not maintain that level of dependence on 
Iraqi oil.
  Last year, we paid Saddam Hussein $6.5 billion. Does that sound like 
good policy? Do the American people really want to continue any efforts 
to benefit a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein, who continues his reckless 
oppression of his own people while threatening the security of the 
world with the development of weapons of mass destruction?
  Madam President, let me answer that question emphatically. The United 
States must not continue this type of dependence, resulting in billions 
of dollars going directly to one of this century's most demented and 
ruthless rulers. The time has come for the United States to develop its 
own ability to produce oil and petroleum so we don't have to depend on 
him.
  I commend President Bush for his actions in the Middle East, and I 
fully support him in the efforts to defend our national security. If it 
should occur one of these days in the near term when the President, we 
would hope in consultation with this body, deems it necessary, for the 
protection of peace

[[Page 4834]]

and safety in the world and our own security, that we take on Saddam 
Hussein and his tyrannical regime once again, we must not be held 
hostage by the fact that they are supplying us oil. Right now, they 
have us over the oil barrel when we have oil and petroleum products in 
the United States we can develop to maintain our security.
  Drilling for oil in Alaska is not just a good, sound option, it is a 
necessity. We must decrease our dependence on foreign oil every way we 
can. As I said a couple weeks ago, the Senate wisely adopted 
reasonable, scientifically based mandates to increase our automobile 
fuel usage. The CAFE provisions mandate an increase in standards that 
will help reduce our dependence. We provide incentives for alternative 
fuels such as electric power, solar-powered vehicles, and other 
provisions that include the use of biodiesel in bus fleets and school 
bus systems.
  Yes, we must have renewables. Last week, the Senate voted in 
opposition to an amendment by my colleagues from California and New 
York that would have undermined the renewable fuels standards. I 
applaud my colleagues for opposing that effort because renewable 
standards are one important part of our energy policy. We need to make 
every effort to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible way to support the 
efforts of the Senators from Alaska. I have been there. I have gone 
with them to visit this region. I have seen the oil exploration 
underway. I have seen the wildlife running on those plains.
  Madam President, when they finish, there will not be any signs of 
development, and it will still be a barren, mosquito-filled plain in 
the summer, with its natural attributes and an absolutely hideously 
cold winter, and the wildlife, the birds, and the fish that thrive up 
there will continue to thrive. We are not destroying anything.
  Even if they were going in to burn and turn it upside down, we are 
talking about 2,000 acres--2,000 acres, just a little over 3 square 
miles out of 30,600 square miles. There is no way anybody can 
legitimately say we are going to No. 1, destroy anything, because we 
are not destroying it. It is not a pristine wilderness that will not 
survive the drilling. We have shown how it can be done, and we are only 
talking about a thumbnail size out of the entire area.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator's time has now 
expired.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank you for that good news, and I urge 
support. I ask my colleagues to support the Senators from Alaska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment that has 
been offered by Senator Murkowski to allow for exploration in this area 
known as ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Also, it is very 
reasonable to pursue what will happen with the funds we would get as a 
result of opening up this wildlife area. It is important that we look 
at this issue in the most serious way.
  I just got off the phone with the President's National Security 
Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, talking about the situation in the Middle 
East. I appreciate the fact Secretary Powell has been there and has 
been meeting with the interested parties trying to make some progress 
in that very difficult situation. I am satisfied that we have a better 
feel now of what can be done, that progress was made in dealing with 
the situation on the northern border of Israel. But the fact is, we 
still have a very volatile situation in the Middle East, one that could 
cause disruptions in a number of ways from that region of the world.
  The oil from Saudi Arabia comprises about 25 percent of the oil the 
world gets. We have had threats from Saddam Hussein. There is no 
question in my mind that he would use any tool of destructive 
capability he could find, including cutting off the oil that comes from 
Iraq.
  I still agree very strongly with Senator Murkowski that it is 
impossible to explain why we would be getting oil directly or 
indirectly from Iraq, refining it, and then sending it back to the 
region to be used in our planes to patrol the region to keep Saddam 
Hussein and the Iraqis under control.
  The oil supply in the world is not in a stable situation. We saw this 
past week in Venezuela a change in Government, and then the former 
Government was back in place. This is a country we depend on. I believe 
the third largest amount of oil we get comes from Venezuela.
  The point is, we are in danger. Our national security and our 
economic security could be threatened by the instability in the world, 
by the uncertainty or the unreliability of the sources of this oil and 
gas. If we start losing part of it or large portions of it, we could be 
in a very difficult situation very soon.
  We need a national energy policy. We need additional production, and 
I predict today that if we do not take advantage of the oil we know 
exist in ANWR, in that northern extremity of Alaska, we will have some 
very bad situations evolve in the next few months, or in the next 
couple of years. I do not want to say I told you so, but when the 
gasoline prices go up, when supplies cause dislocation, when we have 
rolling brownouts, it will be traceable right back to this body and to 
this vote.
  We need to understand this is for real. We need our own domestic 
energy supplies, and all the supplies that might be available. We 
should make better use and more use of nuclear power, but we have 
people who do not want nuclear power. They do not want to have a 
nuclear waste repository. We should make use of hydropower more, 
although in some areas there are people who do not want hydropower 
because it might adversely affect some species.
  We need additional oil and gas, but yet we have people in America who 
do not want to have exploration off the east coast, the west coast, the 
gulf coast, and now in the northern part of Alaska.
  We need to make greater use of coal. We can have clean coal 
technology that allows us to have the benefit of this source of energy 
without being a problem for the environment. Again, a lot of people 
oppose that.
  What do they propose doing? How are we going to have the energy we 
need to fuel the growing economy we all want in America? I think we 
should do all of these things, and that is my problem with this bill. 
This bill has a lot of conservation incentives and alternative fuels. 
We have the tax bill that came out of the Finance Committee. There is a 
large amount of tax incentives for hybrid sales in automobiles, and to 
encourage getting these marginal wells back in usage. We have all of 
that in the bill but not what we need for energy production.
  The point that is so critical to me--this map I am sure my colleagues 
and the American people have seen. The area we are talking about is an 
extremely small portion on the Arctic Ocean, and the people of the 
region and the Senators and Congressmen of the State want this to 
happen. We are being told we cannot do that.
  We are being told by people from States in the furthest extremities 
of the eastern part of the United States: We do not think this should 
happen in this area.
  Whatever happened to Senatorial courtesy and trust? For years as a 
Member of Congress in the House and Senate, I put my greatest 
reliance--although I reserve the right to make up my own mind--but I 
put an awful lot of reliance on the Senators and Congressmen from the 
States.
  When I had the Congressman from North Dakota say to me and others: 
Yes, the Garrison Diversion is something we want--a lot of 
environmentalists said we should not have the Garrison Diversion--I 
took the word of then-Congressman, now-Senator Dorgan about the need 
for and the justification for the Garrison Diversion.
  We have had lots of debates in years gone by about water supply in 
Arizona. I did not have a Mississippi dog in that fight. I did not know 
all the ramifications of the argument. Who did I rely on? I relied on 
the word of the Congressmen and the Senators and the people in the 
local region.

[[Page 4835]]

  Why are we not doing that now? Two of the most effective, most 
respected Senators in this body, the Senators from Alaska, Mr. Stevens 
and Mr. Murkowski, are pleading with us to give them the opportunity to 
do this in a safe, reliable, affordable way in a very small region.
  We have the letter from the Alaska Natives who live in this area 
asking us to support opening of ANWR, and basically pleading with us to 
give them an opportunity. The people who live in the region want it. 
They know it can be done safely. They know it can be done in a way that 
would benefit the people economically. I am really at a loss for words 
to explain why this should not be done.
  There is a national movement of some kind by various groups saying we 
must not let this happen, but when it comes to dealing with energy 
independence, when it comes to dealing with the likes of dictators in 
Iraq such as Saddam Hussein, when it comes to creating new jobs, this 
is the thing to do. It is supported by labor unions. The people who 
would be involved in transporting the supplies, the people who would be 
involved in building the pipelines, they are for this.
  For those who are worried about the environment, I have never seen a 
project that has stronger environmental rules that would have to be 
enforced than any project I know of, and they have narrowed the area. 
They have offered to put more land in pristine reservations. Everything 
possible has been done to make it possible for us in the United States 
to get the benefit of this exploration and this pipeline and the supply 
we would get from it.
  So when we look at our current situation, relying on 60 percent 
foreign oil for our energy needs, when we look at the instability in 
the world, in several countries where we rely on the oil they produce, 
and then when we look at the benefits we get economically, and the 
jobs, this is legislation we clearly should pass.
  An energy policy without ANWR is not complete. In my own case, I have 
spoken about the ability to explore in what is known as the Destin Dome 
in the Gulf of Mexico, close to where I live. I want it because we need 
it. I know it can be done in an environmentally safe way and in a way 
that will not be damaging to the fish in the Gulf of Mexico, and yet we 
had a tremendous debate in the Senate about opening up even a part of 
that area. Yet those of us who live there, the Senators from Alabama 
and Mississippi, although not the case with the Florida Senators, were 
saying: This can be done, and we need to do it.
  I believe a map speaks a million words in explaining what is 
involved. So I thank Senator Murkowski for his diligence. He has tried 
every way in the world to make sure the American people understand the 
importance of this, that they understand this could be done in a way 
that would benefit America with probably somewhere between half a 
million and 735,000 new jobs, that it would reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Some people said if we started today, we would not get it online for 
months, perhaps years. Eventually we are going to have to do this. The 
time will come when America is going to have serious energy problems 
and we are going to have to go where we can get energy the quickest, 
and one of those places is this particular area on that northern slope 
of Alaska.
  So I wanted to come and add my support for this effort. I do not know 
how in the world we can justify not being for this. I believe President 
Clinton vetoed this effort in 1995, and yet the Congress has passed 
this several times over the last 20 years. I believe that is correct 
information. We should do it once again.
  I urge my colleagues, if they are undecided or if they have been 
leaning the other way, think about it again. The situation has changed. 
The need for this oil and the gas that might be involved has changed 
since this debate began. I would not want to be a Senator who voted no 
on this 6 months from now, because we could be having huge problems. 
This could be a vote that would haunt us forever. I do not mean that as 
a threat, I mean it as a plea. We need this.
  The Senator from Louisiana and I are very closely situated to the 
Gulf of Mexico. We know we can get oil and gas with the technology now 
available. That technology is so sophisticated. one does not just take 
a potshot down and hope they hit. When they look at the charts, they 
know exactly where the little shelves are. They can go right to where 
the oil is.
  Some of the best fishing I have ever experienced in my life was 
around the oil rigs off the coast of Louisiana, not far from the 
Chandelier Islands. I know the area. I have been there. I have not been 
to ANWR.
  Senator Murkowski and I will have to debate where fishing is the 
best. He has tried to take me to Alaska, but I said: ``Isn't it very 
cold up there? Isn't it a pretty barren area?'' I would rather go where 
there are palm trees or oil rigs already in place.
  I say to my colleague from Alaska, I really appreciate the job he has 
done. I am going to work with him to the very last minute to see if we 
cannot do what is right, not just for the Senator from Alaska, not even 
just for Alaska. This is for America. If we are from some remote State, 
for us to say this little piece of 2,000 acres cannot be used to 
produce oil and gas is irresponsible, in my opinion, when you look at 
what we are faced with in terms of threats around the world.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this. Let us get a good energy bill for 
the good of our country.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Does the leader know what the temperature is outside 
today?
  Mr. LOTT. In Washington, DC, I think it is approaching 95. What is 
the temperature on the northern slope of Alaska?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was hoping the minority leader would respond by 
asking me a question. Having been there exactly a year ago today, with 
Senator Bingaman, who left his gloves at home and we had to find a pair 
of socks for him--we later found him a pair of gloves--and Gale Norton, 
Secretary of the Interior, it happened to be 77 below zero in Barrow. 
That gives some idea of the contrast between Washington, DC, and 
Alaska.
  Mr. LOTT. In April it is still that cold?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It was that particular day a year ago today. So I 
think that is a little reference to the harshness of the environment up 
there.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to 
which I referred be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation,

                                     Kaktovik, AK, April 17, 2002.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Daschle and Lott: The people of Kaktovik, 
     Alaska--Kaktovikmiut--are the only residents within the 
     entire 19.6 million acres of the federally recognized 
     boundaries of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). 
     Kaktovikmiut ask for your help in fulfilling our destiny as 
     Inupiat Eskimos and Americans. We ask that you support 
     reopening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to energy exploration.
       Reopening the Coastal Plain will allow us access to our 
     traditional lands. We are asking Congress to fulfill its 
     promise to the Inupiat people and to all Americans: to 
     evaluate the potential of the Coastal Plain.
       In return, as land-owners of 92,160 acres of privately 
     owned within the Coastal Plain of ANWR, the Kaktovik Inupiat 
     Corporation promises to the Senate of the United States:
       1. We will never use our abundant energy resources ``as a 
     weapon'' against the United States, as Iraq, Iran, Libya and 
     other foreign energy exporting nations have proposed.
       2. We will not engage in supporting terrorism, terrorist 
     States or any enemies of the United States;
       3. We will neither hold telethons to raise money for, 
     contribute money to, or in any other way support the 
     slaughter of innocents at home or abroad;
       4. We will continue to be loyal Alaskans and proud 
     Americans who will be all the more proud of a government 
     whose actions to reopen ANWR and our lands will prove it to 
     be the best remaining hope for mankind on Earth; and
       5. We will continue to pray for the United States, and ask 
     God to bless our nation.

[[Page 4836]]

       We do not have much, Gentleman, except for the promises of 
     the U.S. government that the settlement of our land claims 
     against the United States would eventually lead to the 
     control of our destiny by our people.
       In return we give our promises as listed above. We ask that 
     you accept them from the grateful Inupiat Eskimo people of 
     the North Slope of Alaska who are proud to be American.
           Most respectfully and sincerely,
                                                   Fenton Rexford,
                                                        President.

  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I wonder why they call it barren.
  Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request 
momentarily, but I do want to get the attention of the minority leader 
for 1 second. I am going to have my colleague and friend, John Ensign, 
speak to Senator Lott based upon the speech Senator Lott just gave. 
When the Senator talked about senatorial courtesy and how we should 
give deference to what Senators from a State want, I want Senator 
Ensign to talk to Senator Lott about Yucca Mountain because it would 
seem fair to me, using the analogy that has been stated for drilling in 
Alaska, the same should apply to Nevada. But we will see.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to.
  Mr. LOTT. I am always delighted to talk to Senator Reid and Senator 
Ensign. I think maybe the Record will reflect in the past that I did 
listen very closely to some of his pleas. But we will have a chance to 
debate that another day.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the two managers. I have 
visited with virtually everybody in the Chamber. The staff has visited 
with various other staff members. We have 11 Senators who have 
indicated a desire to speak on this matter, which works out so each 
side goes back and forth, and the time almost works out perfectly also.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be recognized for 20 
minutes; following Senator Durbin, that Senator Burns be recognized for 
15 minutes; following Senator Burns, Senator Cantwell be recognized for 
15 minutes; next, Senator Voinovich for 20 minutes; Senator Landrieu 
for 30 minutes; Senator Feingold for 20 minutes; Senator Domenici for 
15 minutes; Senator Dorgan for 20 minutes; Senator Craig for 30 
minutes; Senator Graham for 30 minutes; and then Senator Nickles is the 
last speaker who I have been told wishes to speak, and there would be 
no time limit on him.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Reserving the right to object, I want to work with the 
majority whip. Senator Stevens is going to want to speak and does not 
want to be limited to any time commitment.
  Mr. REID. No problem.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am also going to reserve my right to extend my 
remarks. I do not want this list to exclude other Members who may be 
wanting to speak. In the interest of time, I am quite willing to 
proceed with the list as given, subject to the gentlemen and ladies who 
are in the Chamber currently looking for recognition.
  Mr. REID. I also ask unanimous consent that following Senator 
Nickles, Senator Stabenow be recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is the understanding, Mr. President, that we will 
go back and forth.
  Mr. REID. The consent I propounded does that. The time works out 
quite closely, also.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I reserve the right of Senator Stevens to come in to 
this sequence if it is necessary. I assume Senator Bingaman will 
reserve that right for himself, as I will, and the majority leader 
would, as well.
  Mr. REID. I certainly think the two managers of the bill should be 
able to say whatever they believe is appropriate during this debate. 
But so we have some understanding, until we get this agreement, there 
is no extended remarks of the two managers. We get this done and 
Members can speak as long as they wish.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Reserving the right to object, I reserve that for 
Senator Stevens because he is in a hearing and he may want to come 
back. I ask unanimous consent he be allowed to come into the sequence 
which would involve an interruption.
  Mr. REID. I think that is fair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Senator Bingaman and I work well together.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I again propound the request, with the 
exception of Senator Stevens, who is involved elsewhere. If he wishes 
to speak, he will be allowed to speak at the appropriate time for 
whatever time he desires.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We would like to have a copy of the list because there 
are two lists working.
  Mr. REID. We will get that to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I am not mistaken, I am the first 
Senator under the unanimous consent request. I thank the Senators from 
Nevada and Alaska.
  This has turned out to be a historic debate about energy in that we 
have spent more time on it than any other issue I can remember since I 
have come to the Senate in the last 5 or 6 years. It is important we do 
spend the time, because if the issue is energy security and energy 
independence, we see on a daily basis why it is not only timely, but 
absolutely essential for our national security.
  We followed the issues in the Middle East for many reasons. There are 
those who feel a special attachment to the nation of Israel and the 
alliance of the United States with that nation. There are those who 
follow it for many other reasons. Let's be honest. One of the reasons 
we consistently look to the Middle East is because it is a source of 
energy for the United States. We were involved in a war a little over 
10 years ago, the Persian Gulf war, because of the invasion of Kuwait 
by Iraq. President Bush's father made it clear at the time this was 
about energy, about oil.
  Time and again, the United States focuses its attention on the world 
because of our dependence on other countries for the oil and gas they 
send to our shores. It is an essential part of our economy, an 
essential part of our daily lives. We Americans are very happy and 
comfortable with our automobiles and trucks. We like that part of being 
in America. However, it has a price. It has a price not only in 
maintaining the vehicle but a price in terms of our relationship with 
the world.
  The purpose of this energy bill is to talk about how we establish 
some energy independence and energy security, how we make the right 
decisions today so we can say to our kids and our grandchildren, in the 
year 2002, we took a look at the world and said: We will change a few 
things in the United States so we don't end up totally dependent on 
some foreign country for our energy, so that your life and your economy 
is going to be less dependent on what happens in Saudi Arabia or the 
gulf states or any other part of the world.
  That is as noble an aspiration as could be asked for in political 
life. It generated, thanks to the leadership of Senator Bingaman of New 
Mexico, this lengthy tome of suggestions for change when it comes to 
energy in America. What is curious is the administration, President 
Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others, came up with their own plan. 
That plan was fraught with controversy and political intrigue. At one 
point, we asked a very simple question of the administration: With whom 
did you meet? Which corporations and companies and associations did you 
meet with to draw up your energy plan for America's future?
  To the surprise of this Senator, and many others, Vice President 
Cheney basically said: That is none of your business. We are going to 
put together our plan and submit it to you. We hope you like it, but 
you don't have a right to know with whom we consulted.
  In the meantime, the Government Accounting Office has taken the 
administration to court to produce the names of the people with whom 
they worked. A court in the District of Columbia ordered the disclosure 
of some of the names. To the surprise of virtually no one, the major 
groups that

[[Page 4837]]

wrote the administration's policy were the oil and gas companies, the 
energy companies. They are the ones that put it together. Yes, there 
was an invitation for an environmental group to drop by and say, hello, 
have a sandwich, and leave, but the substantive work and the 
appointments were with the energy companies. It is reflected in the 
administration's approach.
  Why are we debating the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Frankly, for 
reasons it is hard to explain, it is the centerpiece of the George W. 
Bush administration's energy plan for the future of America. We have 
spent more time talking about that tiny piece of real estate in Alaska 
than many other issues that do bear on the importance of energy 
security.
  One would be led to believe, if one didn't know the facts, that if we 
could just drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, if we could 
scatter that Porcupine caribou herd, put up our pipeline and drill, 
America could breathe a sigh of relief. We finally found the oil we 
need for the next century.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. That is why you have to ask 
yourself, if this is not the answer to our energy prayers, why are we 
spending so much time at this altar? We are spending more time debating 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge than many other critically 
important elements of our energy security.
  It has a lot to do with the group that put together the 
administration's energy plan. Let's be honest. These oil companies own 
the rights to drill the oil. If they can get into this wildlife refuge, 
if they can drill, they will make some money out of it. It is part of 
business. It is a natural part of the free market economy. It isn't 
about energy security. It is about these oil companies and their rights 
to drill and make a profit.
  Let me tell you what that means in real terms. Here is a report, not 
from a left-wing group but from the Energy Information Administration, 
part of the Department of Energy for the George W. Bush administration. 
Here is what they have said about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

       Net imports are projected to supply 62 percent of all oil 
     used in the United States by the year 2020. Opening the 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is estimated to reduce the 
     percentage share of net imports to 60 percent.

  So if we give to those oil companies the right to move into this 
wildlife refuge, the right to drill in territory and land which we have 
set aside and held sacred now for over 40 years, what does America get 
as part of the deal? A net reduction in our dependence on foreign oil 
by the year 2020 from 62 percent of all the oil we use to 60 percent. 
The estimates are all of the oil taken out of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge over a 10-year period of time would amount to 6 months' 
worth of energy for the United States.
  Why, then, if that is what we are talking about, is this the 
centerpiece of the administration's policy? It goes back to the point I 
made earlier. It is the centerpiece of their policy because the people 
who wrote the policy, the special interest groups that sat down and 
crafted the policy, have another agenda. It isn't energy security; it 
isn't energy independence. It is about profitability.
  Look at the impact of ANWR on net imports. The green line is net 
imports with ANWR; the blue line is net imports otherwise. They are 
almost indistinguishable. The chart says the same thing that President 
Bush's Department of Energy has already said.
  So we find ourselves in the position of debating this issue. When 
President Eisenhower created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--and I 
might remind people, President Eisenhower was not viewed as some 
radical environmentalist--he was following in a long line and a long 
tradition in America where Presidents of both political parties took a 
look at their heritage, America's lands, and said: There are certain 
things which we want to honor, respect, and not exploit.
  They took a tiny piece of real estate in one of the most remote parts 
of America, in this new State of Alaska, and said: This piece we will 
protect as a wildlife refuge.
  For over 40 years, President after President, Democrat and 
Republican, respected that--until today. Today we have an argument from 
this President and his supporters in Congress that it is time for us to 
move in and start to drill.
  I suggest to my colleagues that the Arctic Coastal Plain we are 
discussing is a unique natural area, one of America's last frontiers. 
These precious lands will be part of our legacy for future generations. 
Before we cavalierly say to these oil companies: pull in the trucks, 
pull in the rigs, and start drilling, we ought to step back and reflect 
as to whether or not this is sensible or responsible. I do not believe 
it is.
  In this energy policy we have brought to the floor, there are a lot 
of suggestions about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There was 
one that came to the floor for debate and a vote a week or two ago 
which went to the heart of the issue. Of all the oil we import to the 
United States today from overseas, 46 percent of it goes for one 
purpose--to fuel our cars and trucks. That is right. Forty-six percent 
of all the oil coming to the United States goes to fuel our automobiles 
and trucks. That number is supposed to grow to almost 60 percent in a 
few years. In other words, our demands for more vehicles to be driven 
on the highway as we want is going to increase our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Doesn't it stand to reason that part of any responsible energy bill 
would talk about the fuel efficiency of the cars and trucks that we 
drive?
  Not in the eyes of the Senate. We had a vote to put a new fuel 
efficiency standard on the books and it lost 62 to 38. The Big Three 
automakers and their supporters came to the Senate and said: We do not 
want you to improve the fuel efficiency and fuel economy of vehicles in 
America.
  The Senate said: You are right. We are not going to touch it.
  Why is that significant? It is significant for this reason. Look at 
what would happen here in terms of the billions of barrels of oil we 
would have saved just by increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and 
trucks in America. If we had gone up to 36 miles a gallon by 2015, with 
10-percent trading of credits back and forth, the red line shows we 
would be saving somewhere in the range of 14 billion barrels of oil 
cumulative; at 35 miles per gallon, you see the blue line is higher 
because it is at an earlier date that it is implemented.
  You have to scroll down here, if you are following this, and look 
down low and see what the ANWR means in comparison. It is this line 
here at the bottom, barely over 2 billion barrels of oil in the entire 
history of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  This Senate rejected real savings when it came to fuel efficiency and 
fuel economy. We rejected that. We rejected it, incidentally, because 
the Big Three in Detroit and their lobbyists in Washington effectively 
lobbied the Senate.
  But today we are being asked to go ahead and drill in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge that has been set aside for 40 
years, and we know it doesn't even hold a candle to the savings 
enhanced fuel efficiency would generate in terms of our energy 
dependence.
  The lesson and the moral to the story is there are a lot more 
lobbyists for the oil companies than there are for the Porcupine 
caribou that live in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is the 
bottom line. There are not a lot of people out there with antlers, 
waiting in the lobby, but there are a lot of folks with Gucci loafers 
on, and they are waiting to tell us: Don't touch the Big Three when it 
comes to the fuel efficiency of vehicles.
  I think it is shameful to think that between 1975 and 1985 we passed 
a law that doubled the fuel efficiency of cars to a level of about 28 
miles per gallon, and that we have not touched that issue for 17 years. 
That tells me we have been derelict in our responsibility. If we really 
cared about America's independence and security, we would be focusing 
on fuel efficiency, fuel economy of the cars and trucks we drive. But 
this Senate walked away from it and said, no, we don't want any part of 
that debate. We are with the

[[Page 4838]]

Big Three. We are with the special interests. Instead, let's figure out 
how we can drill in the ANWR.
  That is not the only thing we have ignored. Renewable energy sources, 
what are those? Those are the ones that are not expended such as fossil 
fuels. Once you burn the tank of gas, it is gone into the atmosphere. 
We get the energy out of it and leave the pollution. Renewable energy 
sources, such as wind and solar energy and hydrogen cells and those 
sorts of things, fuel cells, all of those have the potential of 
environmentally friendly sources of energy. How much do we in the 
United States today rely on that kind of renewable energy to generate 
electricity? To the tune of about 4 percent of our total, about 4 
percent.
  Some of us said: Why don't we take on, as a challenge to America, 
increasing our dependence on renewable environmentally friendly energy 
sources such as wind power and solar power and fuel cells and hydrogen 
power? Let's increase the renewable portfolio standard to 20 percent 
over a 20-year period of time. Senator Jeffords of Vermont offered 
that. I cosponsored it. It is not an unrealistic goal. The State of 
California currently relies on renewable energy sources for more than 
10 percent of its electricity.
  We can, as a nation, do it, reduce dependence on foreign energy. But 
this Senate said no because the oil companies, the special interests 
out in the lobby, in their three-piece suits, said: No, we are not 
interested in that. We don't own the wind. We don't own the Sun. We own 
the oil. We own the gas. Stay dependent on that, America.
  So we have a modest goal of increasing our use of renewable energy 
from 4 percent to 8 or 10 percent. At a time when we are dealing with 
an energy bill, I think we are suffering from anemia. We are afraid to 
step out and do what is necessary to make America less dependent on 
foreign fuel.
  Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is the answer to 
every lobbyist's prayer. But, honestly, it is not the answer to 
America's prayer. America is praying this Senate comes to its senses, 
that we understand we can make and must make bold and important 
decisions today. If we say to the Big Three, you have the wherewithal 
and the technology to produce a more fuel-efficient vehicle so we can 
still move our kids to soccer games and be safe on the road, they can 
do it. We issued that challenge before and they did it. They didn't 
like it. They resisted it.
  In 1975, when we increased fuel efficiency, the Big Three said that 
was impossible. Double fuel economy in America? Let me tell you what is 
wrong with that idea: Technically impossible; the cars will be so small 
they will look like gocarts, they will not be safe, Americans won't 
drive them, and you are going to drive jobs overseas. That was the 
argument in 1975.
  Guess what. We ignored them, passed the law, and none of those four 
things happened. By 1985, we doubled fuel economy and none of those 
things happened. So in the year 2002, when we get in the same debate 
about fuel efficiency, what did the Big Three say? Technically, it's 
really impossible, Senator, for us to improve fuel economy. The cars 
will be so tiny they will be like gocarts. People won't like them. They 
won't be safe. And people are going to buy cars from overseas. The same 
arguments, the same empty arguments. It shows an attitude of some of 
our manufacturers in this country which in a way is embarrassing.
  Why is it when it comes to the new generation of vehicles on the 
road, the hybrid vehicles getting 50 or 60 miles a gallon, they all 
have Japanese nameplates on them? I don't get it. This is the greatest 
country in the world, with the strongest military in the world, the 
best schools in the world, the best engineers in the world. Yet when it 
comes to automobiles, we are satisfied with the bronze medal every day 
of the week. Frankly, the Senate has not stepped up to its 
responsibility in adding the provisions that are necessary to make sure 
our energy independence is established.
  We want energy security but not at the expense of America's last 
frontier. If we are serious about energy security, we have to reduce 
oil consumption in the vehicles in our country. A comprehensive, 
balanced energy policy will provide for oil and gas development in 
environmentally responsible areas--not the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  We can establish conservation measures. We can cut down on our energy 
consumption. We owe that not only to ourselves but to our children.
  As James E. Service, a retired vice admiral of the Navy, wrote in a 
recent Los Angeles Times op-ed:

       National security means more than protecting our people, 
     our cities and our sovereignty. It also means protecting the 
     wild places that make our nation special. Drilling the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge . . . just doesn't make good sense 
     or good policy.

  He said that on January 14 of this year.
  But someone before him really set the tone for Congress to think 
about it. His bust is out in our lobby. His name was Teddy Roosevelt. 
As Vice President, he presided over this Senate. He is the one who 
really told America to be mindful of the heritage you leave. I quote 
him:

       It is not what we have that will make us a great nation; it 
     is the way in which we use it.

  Teddy said that almost 100 years ago. On this vote, we will find out 
whether the Senate remembers Roosevelt's advice to our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I think if we have learned one thing from 
this exercise on energy legislation, it is that we found trying to mark 
up a bill on the floor of the Senate is pretty difficult. I was 
reminded that back in 1992 we almost did the same. We didn't have quite 
the spirited committee action on energy, but we still got into the same 
kind of a bind when it came to the floor. Maybe it doesn't make a lot 
of difference.
  I would like to remind my colleagues that today we should be talking 
about a policy we can shape to take us into the future. We are not only 
dealing with the acute situation we find ourselves in today, but where 
we want to be in 20, 30, 40, or 50 years from now. What do we do about 
new technologies, and which technologies are able to be developed in 
that time? That question indicates to me we have a great deal of 
flexibility to allow those new technologies to evolve and be used as 
soon as they are developed. Whatever we do in Government mandates, 
therefore we should make sure they are not frozen in place. We should 
allow those new ideas to grow.
  Market forces will dictate more in the way of conservation than any 
mandate by the Federal Government has ever done.
  Let me remind you that if gasoline goes to $2 a gallon, you are still 
spending more money for the water you buy in that filling station than 
you are for the gasoline. You will start looking for conservation 
practices in the things you do in your traveling habits.
  Fossil fuel has been the primary fuel of our economy since the turn 
of the last century. For over 100 years it has served us well, and it 
could for the next hundred. However, it should not be the only fuel we 
use in our everyday lives.
  New technology has moved us to unlimited use of renewables and 
different sources in the evolution of conservation technology and 
practice. We know the present conditions and situations. We should deal 
with them and decide what our policy will be after resolving this acute 
situation. The condition we find ourselves in today is about energy 
security. To those who would use the flimsy argument saying we should 
use less and produce less, I say there is another one that is acutely 
in our makeup; that is, energy security is economic security is 
national security. What direction that takes us in is very important. 
Our challenge should be that debating this bill will take us beyond 
that situation. The world condition is at hand, and it should be dealt 
with right now.
  I have iterated many times that we are still dependent on fossil 
fuels. The

[[Page 4839]]

switch from those fossil fuels is a process that will take a long time, 
and it will be very expensive.
  What is at stake here? Let us look at the real facts instead of the 
misinformation that is floating around this town. Let me remind you 
that the American people know what is at stake, and they are not 
comfortable with the facts they are given. They are equally 
uncomfortable with what is happening on the floor of this Senate.
  I have one simple question: Why are we importing oil from Iraq? 
Agreed, they are allowed to sell oil under the U.N. resolution. The 
income derived from those sales is to be used to buy food and medical 
supplies for the citizens of Iraq. If Saddam Hussein sells us anywhere 
from 650,000 to 850,000 barrels of oil a day, and also sells some oil 
on the black market, what is he doing with that money? Where do you 
think it goes? I will tell you where it doesn't go. It doesn't go to 
the citizens of Iraq. He buys arms and technology to equip his army and 
support terrorist activities around the world. In fact, we are told 
that Iraq is paying $25,000 cash to any family who loses a suicide 
bomber. That is going way over the line.
  From the Gulf, we import about 10.8 million barrels of oil a day, and 
1.5 million barrels comes from Saudi Arabia. Nearly a million barrels 
come from Iraq.
  Let us take a look at this tiny little spot called the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. Keep in mind that when it was created, this 
little area was set aside for oil and gas exploration and production. 
That is the reason it was set aside--not the whole Arctic Plain, but 
just that little footprint of 2,000 acres or less.
  Conservative estimates put the total production at about 1.35 million 
barrels a day. That would replace 55 years of oil from Iraq and 30 
years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.
  The reserves in ANWR are estimated to be 10 billion barrels. That is 
a conservative estimate.
  Remember how we underestimated Prudhoe Bay. It has produced nearly 20 
percent of our domestic production in the last 25 years.
  Since 1973, domestic production has decreased by 57 percent. We are 
only producing about 8 million barrels a day, and we are using 19 
million barrels a day.
  Anybody who doesn't understand that didn't take basic math in the 
same grade school where I went to school, which is a little country 
school.
  We hear every day on the floor of the Senate that we should be 
concerned about our balance of payments. We should be concerned about 
it. Last year alone, we sent $4.5 billion to Saddam Hussein's Iraq for 
his oil.
  As I said, energy security is economic security is national security.
  This has a job impact. We heard all kinds of estimates. But we know 
this won't happen without the effort of labor. Yesterday, if you had 
stood with the heart and soul of the labor folks in this country and 
heard their arguments that this should happen, then you would 
understand why the Nation supports the development and exploration of 
this tiny spot.
  We have people living in Montana who work on the North Slope. We have 
had since the first day they started production up there. They jump on 
airplanes, spend a couple of weeks, and come home for a week. It is 
important to my state. If Prudhoe were built today, the footprint would 
be around 1,500 acres--64 percent smaller than it is. ANWR will impact 
2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres on the Coastal Plain.
  I have been up there. I have seen the Porcupine caribou herd. It has 
grown about three times in size during the last 20 years. That is where 
they calve. They don't stay there all winter. They are a migrating 
herd. Nothing has kept them from migrating. The people who live in that 
area depend on that herd. That is a source of food supply for them. 
When they migrate, that is when they get their winter stores. They 
don't have grocery stores like we have down here. They don't want 
anything to happen to that herd. I don't think they are going to 
mislead us on how that herd will be impacted.
  Oil and gas production and wildlife have successfully coexisted in 
the Alaskan Arctic for over 30 years. The figures bear that out.
  Despite what is told and the misinformation that flies around here, 
the folks on the Coastal Plain support this by 75 percent. They 
understand what the revenue does. They understand that it provides a 
government service which is demanded by them. That is even taking into 
account the money that it pumps into the National Treasury. Anybody on 
the Budget Committee around here would understand that also.
  I know how this impacts a State represented by two Senators who have 
stood in this Chamber and have fought for their people every day. It is 
like us going to southern Illinois and saying: You can't have any more 
oil production down there. But they can't say it because there are no 
public lands. But in Alaska there are, and that is the difference. 
Withdrawal of public lands from any exploration of natural gas in the 
States of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and some in New Mexico, has cost 
the American people 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And that is 
going to be the fuel that produces the electricity of the future. We 
think it is for ``the environment,'' when it could be lifted, produced, 
and moved with hardly a disturbance to any of the surface of our land.
  And, yes, you are going to see natural gas turn up as a 
transportation fuel.
  What we are doing in this argument defies common sense. These are the 
facts. They should not take away from our investment into new 
technologies and our determination for conservation. I will not let 
anybody else redefine the word ``conservation'' because it is defined 
as a wise use of a resource. We should move forward on R&D into new 
technologies. Even coal--and Montana is the ``Saudi Arabia'' of the 
coal reserves in this country--it is there, it is handy, it is 
affordable, and it is ready for use.
  Our investment in fuel cell technology will be an important part of 
our energy mix, and we should not depart from its development. I will 
tell you what fuel cells do. Fuel cells are to the electric industry 
what the wireless telephone is to the communications industry. They are 
safe, clean, and now we have a chance to make it affordable. We should 
continue our work in that area.
  But, in the meantime, let's do what common sense tells us to do: 
Let's use that little footprint afforded to this country for the 
production of energy because energy security is economic security, is 
national security.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, seeing no other Senator seeking 
recognition, I would like to take just a few minutes to share with you 
a chart that has already been identified on a couple of occasions but I 
think needs a little further identification.
  As I show you on this map what happened to Alaska in 1980. The ANILCA 
land law was passed, and our State was, in effect, gerrymandered by 
Congress.
  I want you to look at all those stripes across an area that is one-
fifth the size of the United States because it is entirely the 
Tongass--this area in southeastern Alaska where our capital, Juneau, is 
located--Ketchikan, our fifth largest city; Wrangell; Petersburg; 
Sitka; Haines; Skagway--this is a national forest. There are 16 million 
acres in that national forest. The only thing they forgot is people 
lived in the forest. The communities were there. The assumption was 
that there would be no real justification for the State selecting land 
there. It was not even an issue in statehood in 1959.
  The reason it was not an issue is there was an assumed trust between 
the people of Alaska and the Congress of this country that those people 
could live in that forest, they could make a living off the 
renewability of the resources, the fish and the timber.
  Previous to statehood, the Department of Interior ran the fisheries 
resources of Alaska. They did a deplorable job. They figured that one 
size fits all. We actually had our fishermen on self-imposed limits.
  My point in showing you this detail is this is what happened to 
Alaska.

[[Page 4840]]

Rather than have a resource inventory of those areas that had the 
capability for minerals, oil and gas, timber, and fish, there was an 
arbitrary decision made. It was a cut deal by President Carter. As a 
consequence, these areas of Alaska were withdrawn. They are wilderness 
or refuges or sanctuaries, but they were all withdrawn from 
development.
  I want you to take a closer look at the map because here is where the 
real influence of America's extreme environmental community entered 
into this national effort.
  You notice here on the map, clear across where the Arctic area comes 
into play, this is the general area of the Arctic Circle. There is only 
a little tiny white spot that was left for access, if you will. And the 
access we have from the Arctic, from Prudhoe Bay, is through that 
little area where we have this red line, which is the pipeline that 
brings 20 percent of America's total crude oil to market in Valdez.
  They tried to gerrymander, if you will, the designation of land in 
this State by closing access. We have this huge area out by Kotzebue 
that is mineralized. They closed that off. This did not happen by 
accident. This was a cut-and-dry deal in 1980. Now we are living with 
it today.
  I recognize my good friend from Ohio is in the Chamber, so I will be 
very brief in making this point because I am going to be making several 
points throughout the remainder of the day.
  We have heard quotes from Theodore Roosevelt by some of the speakers. 
I would like to ask just for a brief reflection on another quote in 
1910. Theodore Roosevelt said:

       Conservation means development as much as it does 
     protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation 
     to develop and use the natural resources of our land, but I 
     do not recognize the right to waste them or to rob, by 
     wasteful use, the generations that come after.

  Let's look briefly at the record. I am referring to the 
administration of Jimmy Carter in 1980, and the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act. I quote from President Carter's 
remarks on signing H.R. 39 into law, December 2, 1980. I quote former 
President Carter:

       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.

  Our timber resources are totally tied up. We do not have the 
availability of developing them. As a matter of fact, there is more 
wood cut for firewood in the State of New York than we cut 
commercially. We have lost our pulp mills under the previous 
administration. We have lost our saw mills.
  So as President Carter indicated, it allows development of ``Alaska's 
vital oil and gas and mineral and timber resources.'' It is a promise 
that has been broken. He further states:

       A hundred percent of the offshore areas and 95 percent of 
     the potentially productive oil and mineral areas will be 
     available for exploration or for drilling.

  I can tell you, you cannot get a permit offshore, you cannot get a 
permit on the Arctic Ocean to drill today. Go down to the Department of 
Interior and try it.
  Lastly, I am going to refer to that same meeting, December 2, 1980, 
and the remarks of Representative Udall of Arizona.
  His conclusion was:

       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.

  That is a pretty strong statement. The citizens of the territory of 
Alaska bought that. Of course, we were a State at that time in 1980. We 
bought it, we believed that we could get on with the development of our 
State. The ability to get on with the development of Alaska was the 
ability to penetrate the mentality of the Congress and any given 
administration on the right that we have, as American citizens, to 
develop our State.
  We have been, for all practical purposes, eliminated. Because every 
time we want to do something, we have to cross Federal land. We don't 
even have access to our State capital. These were promises made to the 
people of Alaska. These were promises that have not been kept by the 
Federal Government.
  As we debate the area, the 1002 and ANWR, again, I ask both 
Republicans and Democrats to recognize, it is not a wilderness. It has 
never been a wilderness. It is a refuge. The Senator from Louisiana has 
charts that show us what has happened in refuges. We have oil and gas 
exploration in them all the time.
  This was reserved for Congress. Only Congress can open it. But for 
those who think it is an untouched, spectacular area, there are people 
who live up there. There is the village of Kaktovik.
  Let's put this discussion in real terms. We are fighting for the 
rights we thought we had obtained when we became a State, the right to 
responsibly develop the State. This chart shows oil and gas production 
in refuges around this country. Don't tell me that somehow we are doing 
something wrong by trying to open a refuge in the Arctic.
  We will have a lot more to say about this. I did want to address the 
inconsistency and the broken promises that have been made and the fact 
that our small delegation, Senator Stevens and I and Representative 
Young, feel very strongly, as do the residents of Alaska, that this 
trust has been broken.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of permitting 
oil exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Permitting oil 
production in ANWR will help ensure that the United States is better 
able to meet our growing energy needs in an environmentally sound 
manner, create and retain hundreds of thousands of jobs, boost our 
domestic economy, and protect our national security.
  America's need to continue to fuel our economic recovery and 
guarantee future success will require us to produce ever greater 
amounts of energy to keep up with the demand.
  You can see from this chart, according to the Department of Energy, 
we have a huge gap between our domestic energy production and our 
overall energy consumption right now. What's more, between now and 
2020, we will have to increase energy production by more than 30 
percent just to keep up with growing demand.
  This looming energy crisis requires us to enact a comprehensive 
energy policy, the likes of which we have never had before in this 
country: a policy that harmonizes energy and environmental policies, 
acknowledging that the economy and the environment are vitally 
intertwined; a policy that won't cause prices to spike, hurting the 
elderly, the disabled and low-income families as we experienced in the 
winter of 2000-2001, particularly in the Midwest; a policy that won't 
cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield 
future environmental protection technologies, technologies that can be 
shared with developing nations that currently face severe environmental 
crises; and, most importantly, a policy that protects our national 
security and prevents market volatility by increasing domestic energy 
production.
  The current situation in the Middle East and the resulting price 
increases we have seen at the pump give us a taste of how badly we need 
an energy policy and how much we need to turn towards domestic sources 
to meet that goal. However, as we rely on our own strengths for the 
answers to the coming energy crisis and though we are blessed with 
large reserves of oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear fuel, as well as 
access to renewable sources of energy, we must remember that no single 
source of domestic energy is sufficient to meet all our Nation's energy 
needs. That means we have to broaden our base of energy sources and not 
put all our eggs in one basket.
  If we were some other nation, diversifying our energy supply might be 
a great challenge, but God has blessed the United States of America 
with resources to solve this problem. Conservation has proven 
successful in reducing energy demand. So often people

[[Page 4841]]

say: We aren't doing enough to conserve. We are. By incorporating 
technology breakthroughs into the production of energy-efficient 
automobiles, high-efficiency homes, more efficient appliances and 
machinery, conservation has succeeded in saving us millions of dollars 
while simultaneously improving our environment.
  Let's look at this chart. According to the 1995 DOE report, the most 
recent data available, from 1972 to 1991 the United States saved more 
than $2.5 trillion through conservation. That is a lot of foreign oil 
that we didn't have to buy. It is safe to say that we have saved much 
more money since then, underscoring that conservation efforts deserve 
our continued attention.
  We currently rely very little on renewable sources of energy. In 
fact, wind and solar together make up less than one-tenth of 1 percent 
of our current total energy production. Additionally, they are 
expensive and heavily subsidized. In fact, the average cost per 
kilowatt hour of electricity from a newly installed windmill is 5 cents 
compared to 2 cents per kilowatt from a coal-fired facility.
  On top of this, wind and solar cannot be stored, creating reliability 
problems and making it difficult to spread our costs out predictably 
over time.
  Currently, total renewables production, which includes geothermal, 
solar, wind, hydro and biomass, reaches only 8 percent of our overall 
domestic energy production. We should work to increase that, however, 
since these forms of energy are environmentally friendly and because 
they can help reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources. However, 
we also must be realistic about our challenge. Because renewables make 
up such a small piece of our overall energy picture today, they don't 
have the capacity to meet our needs in the timeframe we are facing. A 
sudden, forced shift in these sources would severely strain their 
underdeveloped capacity, causing shortages and price spikes that would 
hurt our economy.
  For example, the requirement in the Daschle bill that utilities 
generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources of 
energy is estimated to increase the cost of electricity nationwide by 5 
percent and a whole lot more in a State such as Ohio. Just as we 
develop new sources of electricity generation, we should continue to 
encourage development of new energy sources for transportation.
  In the 1970s, the United States recognized the need for diverse 
energy supply by expanding the use of natural gas, coal, nuclear, 
hydropower, and other renewables, and decreasing the use of oil for 
non-transportation uses. In 1978, non-transportation uses of oil in 
this country accounted for almost 50 percent of our oil consumption. 
Today, these non-transportation uses account for about one-third of our 
oil consumption.
  Though home heating oil use remains high in certain regions of the 
country, particularly in the Northeast, consumers have increasingly 
sought other sources such as natural gas to heat their home. In 
addition, oil-fired powerplants are virtually nonexistent today in the 
United States. Crude oil prices and policy priorities encouraged 
substituting oil with other fuels for our non-transportation needs, but 
oil products still make up 95 percent of the energy used for 
transportation in the United States.
  This number will not decrease unless fuel cells and hybrid vehicles 
become more economically viable. But their day is coming. In fact, in a 
recent meeting I had with General Motors executives in Detroit, I was 
told that the company sees fuel cell technology becoming a viable power 
source in the next 10 to 15 years. We are talking reality. It is not 
science fiction to think that our children and grandchildren will see a 
time when the roads are traveled by cars that run on hydrogen and give 
off only water.
  An amendment from the Finance Committee will help encourage the 
development of these new technologies, providing an estimated $2.1 
billion in tax incentives for the use of alternative vehicles and 
alternative motor fuels.
  We are doing a lot right now to try and move away from the use of oil 
in this country and bring down our demand for it through research, 
incentives, and many other things. Encouraging these new fuel sources 
is worthwhile, but until they become more widely adopted and cost 
effective, we will need to continue relying on oil to move people 
across town and across the country and to move raw materials and 
finished goods.
  As I have mentioned, much of this oil comes from foreign sources. We 
must increasingly compete against other nations for this oil. As demand 
grows in response to the expanding world economy, the world economy is 
growing. For example, at one time, China produced enough oil to meet 
their domestic needs and still have some left over to export. Today, 
they import oil.
  What if there was an opportunity in the United States to greatly 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil by using domestic sources of oil? 
Fortunately, with the amendment offered by Senator Murkowski, we have 
that opportunity. For over 40 years, Congress has debated whether or 
not to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. Senator 
Stevens' words yesterday were eloquent and very informative on the 
history of ANWR. I suggest that those who did not hear the Senator, 
take the time to read his remarks in the Congressional Record. His 
remarks should help them to make a better decision on this amendment.
  As Senator Stevens reminded us, this debate is about our national and 
economic security, but, sadly, the reality of ANWR has always been 
misconstrued and used as a political tool. I have to say, those who are 
opposed to allowing a small portion of ANWR to be used to help meet our 
energy needs have done an admirable job in trying to sway public 
opinion. Unfortunately, they have incorrectly painted this as a 
wholesale abandonment of the Alaskan wilderness.
  Thus far, they have had vast success in muddying the facts. Today, 
though, I will make clear what ANWR is, what we are talking about, and 
what limited, precise oil exploration in ANWR means for our Nation.
  Created in 1960, ANWR was expanded to 19 million acres in 1980 by the 
Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act. While designating 8 
million of the original acreage as wilderness, Congress treated the 1.5 
million acres of ANWR's Coastal Plain very differently. I am sure 
Senator Stevens may remind us again, but back in 1980 Congress debated 
the same subject. At that time, Mark Hatfield, the ranking minority 
member and Henry Jackson, Chairman of the Energy Committee, wrote a 
letter urging their colleagues to support exploration in ANWR because, 
and I quote:

       One-third of our known petroleum reserves are in Alaska, 
     along with an even greater proportion of our potential 
     reserves. Actions such as preventing even the exploration of 
     the Arctic Wildlife Range, a ban sought by one amendment, is 
     an ostrich-like approach that ill-serves our Nation in this 
     time of energy crisis.

  They also said that the issue:

       . . . is not just an environmental issue, it is an energy 
     issue. It is a national defense issue. It is an economic 
     issue. It is not an easy vote for one constituency that 
     affects only a remote, faraway area. It is a compelling 
     national issue which demands the balanced solution crafted by 
     the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

  I agree with the points raised in this letter. This is a national 
security issue as well as an economic security issue. When President 
Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act in 
1980, he stated this legislation:

       . . . 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.

  Section 1002 of the Act mandated a study of the Coastal Plain, or 
1002 area, and its resources. After almost 7 years of researching the 
wildlife and the impact of oil development, the study recommended full 
development and described the area as ``the most outstanding petroleum 
exploration target in the onshore United States.''
  The report recommended full development of this area while also 
stating that it is the most biologically productive part of ANWR. This 
means that in

[[Page 4842]]

1987, when the report was issued, it was believed that proper 
environmental steps, combined with technology, which is now 15 years 
old, would not significantly harm the wildlife.
  However, the report did say that if the entire area were leased and 
oil were found, then there would be major effects on the wildlife. But 
no one here is talking about that. We are talking about 2,000 acres for 
oil exploration--2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres. That is less 
than one-half of 1 percent of the total area.
  This is one of the biggest misrepresentations about this debate. The 
entire area of ANWR's Coastal Plain is about the size of the State of 
South Carolina. To the casual observer, he or she thinks drilling means 
drilling throughout the entire refuge, but it is really just a 2,000-
acre site. That is about the size of Dulles International Airport. If 
you look at this map, you can see just how small the area is compared 
to the vast wilderness of the Alaska wilderness and ANWR.
  The two major concerns of the ANWR debate--and the issues that divide 
the two sides--are the environment and oil. While we know a lot about 
the wildlife and impact of oil development, we only have estimates 
about oil because the prohibition on drilling prevents a definitive 
answer to the question.
  We know that the central Arctic caribou herd has grown from 3,000, 
when development began at Prudhoe Bay, to as high as 23,000 caribou. We 
know that development on Prudhoe Bay, which was discovered in 1967, 
would be 64-percent smaller if built today. We know that a drill pad 
that would have been 65 acres in 1977 can be less than 9 acres today. 
We know that Alaskan oil companies now build temporary ice pads, roads, 
and airstrips instead of using gravel. We know that the pictures in the 
commercials and magazines refer to ANWR as ``America's Serengeti.'' 
They must not be talking about the Coastal Plain, for this area is a 
winter wasteland, where temperatures regularly reach 70 degrees below 
zero for 9 months of the year, with 58 consecutive days of darkness.
  We also know that the Coastal Plain is along the same geological 
trend as the productive Prudhoe Bay, and it is the largest unexplored, 
potentially productive onshore basin in the United States. But nobody 
knows for sure what is under there because we are prohibited from 
finding out.
  In addition to the initial 1987 report, the Department of the 
Interior has issued assessments in 1991, 1995, and 1998 based on 
updated data from the U.S. Geological Survey. According to the USGS, it 
is estimated that the Coastal Plain holds between 5.7 billion and 16 
billion barrels of recoverable oil, with an expectancy of about 10.3 
billion barrels. The Coastal Plain can hold more than that, though. For 
example, the North Slope, was originally thought to contain 9 billion 
barrels of oil, but it has produced 13 billion barrels to date.
  What if there isn't any oil? We know that technology is so advanced 
for Arctic drilling that there can be hardly, if any, environmental 
damage from exploratory drilling. For example, an exploratory well 
drilled in 1985 in the area adjacent to the Coastal Plain did not 
affect the wildlife. If the area does have as much oil as estimated, 
the benefit could be great. To put the numbers in perspective, Texas 
has proven reserves of 5.3 billion barrels. There is a 95-percent 
chance that ANWR will yield more oil than all of Texas and a 5-percent 
chance that there is three times as much oil as in Texas.
  One of the half-truths being spread by those opposed to this 
amendment is that there is only 6 months of oil in the Coastal Plain. 
This is misleading because it assumes no other sources of oil--no 
imports, no other domestic supply--except from ANWR. The real truth is 
that, according to the Department of Energy, ANWR's oil supply would 
last between 30 to 60 years.
  Last week, Iraq, one of the ``axis of evil'' nations, announced a 
suspension of oil exports. Iraq supplies more than 9 percent of the 8.6 
million barrels of oil we import every day. It is a longstanding U.S. 
policy not to allow oil to be used as a political weapon. We cannot be 
held hostage to external interests or pressures. Iraq's embargo last 
week shows there are some countries that still think they can apply 
pressure in this manner.
  I am not upset at the fact Iraq shut its spigot because I have little 
doubt we will make up whatever dropoff occurs from other sources. 
Frankly, I think it is incredible that we send $24 million a week and 
$4.5 billion a year to a nation that is clearly an enemy of the United 
States and over which our military flies regular combat missions. It 
doesn't make sense.
  Iraq's action puts the embargo card back on the table as a weapon to 
try to shape American opinion and Government policy. Who is to say 
other leaders in the Middle East might not take the same step in the 
future? We know who they are today. But who are they going to be 
tomorrow, particularly in light of growing Muslim extremism. Some of my 
colleagues may say since all our oil does not come from the Middle 
East, we can look to other nations. That is true, and one such 
supplier, Venezuela, is currently undergoing political and labor strife 
which has a tremendous impact on its oil industry. Indeed, reports by 
Venezuela's Industrial Council earlier this week indicated that 80 
percent of the country's oil industry has been shut down. When Chavez 
retook the Presidency, oil prices went up almost 5 percent out of fear 
he will keep a tight rein on the production volume.
  It is not out of the question to say our Nation may once again face 
the long lines we experienced during the 1973 oil embargo. You would 
have thought we would have learned our lesson and worked to develop 
other oil. However, we have seen our oil imports rise from 35 percent 
in 1973, and we are now at 58 percent. We have made very little 
progress in achieving our energy independence in the nearly three 
decades since the 1973 embargo.
  We had the chance to make significant progress in 1995 when the 
Senate approved exploratory drilling in ANWR. Unfortunately, President 
Clinton vetoed the bill. Had he not, the Energy Information 
Administration estimates that oil could have been flowing to us by as 
early as next year.
  When ANWR is developed, the Energy Information Agency projects that 
peak production rates could range from 650,000 barrels to 1.9 million 
barrels per day. The lowest of this estimate would replace the 613,000 
barrels per day we imported from Iraq in 2000. The highest estimate 
would replace 76 percent of the 2.5 million barrels a day we import 
from the Persian Gulf in 2000.
  It is very simple: We need to break our dependence on unreliable 
foreign energy sources. If the enemies of America are willing to take 
out the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, does anybody doubt that if 
they had a chance to impact our energy supply, they would do it?
  Shouldn't we be able to at least find out how much oil is in ANWR 
especially with this commonsense environmentally sensitive amendment? 
The amendment includes many environmental protections, such as seasonal 
limitations, reclamation of land to its prior condition, use of the 
best available technology--including ice roads, pads, and airstrips for 
exploration, and more.
  Our dependency on foreign nations also threatens our economic 
security. Price shocks and manipulation from OPEC between 1979 to 1991 
are estimated to have cost the U.S. economy about $4 trillion, while 
petroleum imports cost the United States more than $55 billion a year 
and account for over 50 percent of our trade deficit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, development of the Coastal Plain will 
bring up to $350 billion into the U.S. economy and create up to 735,000 
jobs at home. In my state of Ohio, the number of jobs created is 
estimated at 52,000 for the petroleum industry and 31,000 for other 
jobs, such as oilfield and pipeline equipment manufacturing, 
telecommunications and computers,

[[Page 4843]]

and engineering, environmental and legal research. These are real jobs 
for the people in my State, in spite of the fact we are so far away 
from Alaska.
  The economic impact for oil development in Alaska is not a surprise; 
we are experiencing it even today. It has meant a great deal to our 
State and to many other States.
  I also wish to point out that we have the support of Alaska's 
citizens and elected officials. We have heard from both of Alaska's 
U.S. Senators. We have heard from the Inupiat Eskimos who live and own 
92,000 acres of Coastal Plain. Twenty years ago, they were opposed to 
this, but now are for it.
  We cannot continue to rely on unstable foreign sources to meet our 
energy needs. The events of September 11 made it clear who our enemies 
are, yet we continue to do business with them and support their 
terrorist activities by buying oil from them. We know we have the 
resources domestically to reduce our addiction to foreign oil. Now is 
the time to tap them.
  This amendment is economically sound, it is environmentally 
responsible, and it responds to our long-term national security needs. 
It is my fervent hope that my colleagues will recognize these facts and 
support this amendment to allow for oil exploration in ANWR, just as 
they did in 1995 and 1980.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 
minutes prior to the Senator from Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator is recognized for 7 minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment, which would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
oil development. I believe drilling in ANWR is a short-term, 
environmentally unconscionable fix that fails to address our Nation's 
real malady: Our dependence not just on foreign oil, but our 
overdependence on oil itself.
  I believe there is no way to justify drilling in ANWR in the name of 
national security. Oil extracted from the wildlife refuge would not 
reach refineries for 7 to 10 years and would never satisfy more than 2 
percent of our Nation's oil demands at any one time.
  Thus, it would have no discernable short-term 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 
temporarily increase our domestic reserves by only one-third of 1 
percent, which would not even make a significant dent in our imports, 
much less influence world prices by OPEC.
  An ``ANWR is the Answer'' energy policy fails to recognize the 
fundamental truth: we cannot drill our way to energy independence.
  The United States is home to only 3 percent of the world's known oil 
reserves, and unless we take steps necessary to increase the energy 
efficiency of our economy and, in particular, the transportation 
sector, this Nation's consumers will remain subject to the whims of the 
OPEC cartel. To suggest that drilling in the Arctic is the answer is to 
ignore the facts and creates a complacency that truly jeopardizes our 
economic and energy security.
  Furthermore, I believe the recent U.S. Geological Survey report on 
the biological value of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal 
Plain and the impacts of oil and gas development on resident species 
reinforces what many of us have argued from the beginning. Drilling in 
the Arctic represents a real and significant threat to a wide range of 
species including caribou, snow geese, musk oxen, and other wildlife. 
This report represents sound science. It was peer reviewed and 
summarizes more than 12 years of research.
  In stark contrast, the Department of the Interior's recent release of 
a new two-page memo, which purports to examine the impacts of ``more 
limited drilling'' in 300,000 acres of ANWR, was prepared in 6 days. 
One report, 12 years of research; the other report, just 6 days.
  Essentially, in this report the administration decided to dispute its 
own scientists and say drilling in ANWR was acceptable. I disagree with 
that.
  Rather than drilling in ANWR, I believe our task is to craft a 
balanced policy that will permanently strengthen our national security 
and energy independence. We need an energy policy that endows America 
with a strong and independent 21st century energy system by recognizing 
fuel diversity, energy efficiency, the great assets that distributed 
generation will create in the future, and environmentally sound 
domestic production as a permanent solution to our Nation's enduring 
energy needs. We are making some progress on these goals within this 
bill.
  Obviously, one of the most important provisions the Senate has thus 
far debated involves the expedited construction of a 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 United States 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.
  It is very important that we make this investment in new natural gas 
and in job development. Adopting energy efficient technologies can 
significantly advance our national and economic security. For example, 
a Department of Energy report, and these are amazing figures, but this 
Department of Energy report stated that automakers commonly use low-
friction tires on new cars to help them comply with fuel economy 
standards. However, because there are no standards or efficiency labels 
for replacement tires, most consumers unwittingly purchase less 
efficient tires when the originals wear out, even though low-friction 
tires would only cost a few dollars more per tire and actually would 
save the average American driver about $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 3 percent, saving our Nation 
over 5 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years, the same amount 
the U.S. Geological Survey says can be recovered from ANWR.
  Unfortunately, I also believe we have thus far missed the single most 
important opportunity in this bill for truly enhancing our nation's 
energy security and minimizing our foreign oil dependence. That is, we 
have missed the opportunity to put in place real and meaningful CAFE 
standards, which would increase the efficiency of our Nation's vehicles 
and decrease our foreign oil dependence. I continue to believe the only 
way to permanently ensure our Nation's security is to look beyond 19th 
century policies that continue our country's reliance on 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 today if a significant 
portion of American homes and businesses produced their electricity 
from these renewables.
  I think about the last crisis in the 1970s when our overdependence on 
foreign oil and high prices changed the dynamic in how many homes were 
heated with oil and made significant reductions. Our country needs to 
make those same changes today.
  These are policies that will make our energy system truly secure and 
independent. I agree our national security depends in part on the 
United States becoming less dependent on foreign energy resources, and 
that we must develop more domestic supplies and a better balance of 
renewable energy that will also make us less dependent on nonrenewable 
fossil fuels. It would be a mistake to look at this ANWR debate in only 
one way, and to not invest in our country's new sources of energy. 
Therefore, I cannot support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it in the name of national security, to move ahead onto new 
energy sources and a 21st century energy policy.

[[Page 4844]]

  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 minutes as 
allocated under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, with all due respect to my dear friend 
and wonderful colleague from Washington, I rise to oppose the position 
she has outlined and to support the amendment by the Senator from 
Alaska. I think it is very important for us to spend time on this 
issue. One of the previous speakers said: Why would we spend so much 
time on this issue? Why would the Senate, all 100 Members of the 
greatest deliberative body in the world today, spend so much time on 
this issue?
  The answer is because this is not a small matter. This is not an 
insignificant debate. This is not a minor point. This is a major point 
in the debate on the future of this Nation and in what our energy 
policy is going to look like and how we can strengthen and improve upon 
it.
  It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But given what 
I have heard in this Chamber, I say that balance must be in the eyes of 
the beholder as well because those of us both for and against this 
amendment continue to say we are for a balanced policy. Yet we argue 
the different aspects of what balance really is. So I am going to give 
it one more shot by saying what I think balance is.
  The Senators from Alaska have done a magnificent job of making clear 
that we are not for drilling everywhere; we support a balance.
  When this area was created, the areas in dark yellow, light yellow 
and green, there was a balance in the creation of this piece of land, 
land that is as large as the State of South Carolina. Here we have a 
balance: part of a refuge set aside for wildlife of all kinds, and a 
small part where we could drill. Why would we want to drill here? 
Because it is the largest potential onshore oilfield in the entire 
United States. It is not a minor field. It has major resources of oil 
potentially, as well as gas. So a balance was struck. A deal of sorts 
was created.
  We said let's set aside a huge piece of land for a refuge, for a 
wilderness area, and then let's set aside a part of it to drill.
  The reason I feel so strongly about opening this section of ANWR to 
drilling--and it took me a while to come to this position because I 
have heard a lot of other arguments--is because of this precedent I 
feel this will set. If we overturn the original dual intent of ANWR and 
block all drilling there, where will we stop? Instead of adding to 
production in the United States, either on our shores or off of our 
shores, we keep taking places off of the map for production. We are not 
going in the right direction, and we need to change course. That is why 
this is so important.
  I have said this 100 times. The Senator from Alaska has said it, the 
senior Senator from Louisiana did a magnificent job of saying it this 
morning, but let me also quote from a person we all respect--both 
Democrats and Republicans--Richard Holbrooke, whom we know well. I 
would say there would be no disagreement in this Chamber that this man 
is an expert in international relations and national security policy. I 
will read what he said in February this year:

       Our greatest single failure over the last 25 years--

  Not one of our great failures, not something that we should have done 
a little better--

     was our failure to reduce our dependence on foreign oil--
     which would have reduced the leverage of Saudi Arabia.

  Why does he say this? Because of headlines such as these: ``Suicide 
Bomber Kills 6 as Powell's Talks Begin,'' ``Chavez Reclaims Power in 
Venezuela,'' ``Powell Meets Arafat, Makes Little Progress.''
  Mr. Holbrooke knows the uncertainty of the Middle East and we are all 
learning of the difficulties in Venezuela. He represented our country 
in the United Nations. He knows what it takes for America to be strong 
to get to the negotiating table free to make the best decisions we can. 
He knows our energy policy is in lockstep with our national security 
policy.
  We have a chance to reverse course and not make the same mistake 
again. Let's have a balance.
  Again, we have in ANWR the original intent to have some refuge area, 
some wilderness area, and some drilling area. Not all drilling. Not 
drilling everywhere, but where we can. An area for wildlife, for 
general recreation, and one for the bottom line, businesses, workers, 
companies, and our economy. This is balanced. Instead, we get no more 
drilling, a moratorium.
  Let me show the other moratoria in the country. In addition to Alaska 
being taken off the map, we have--Democrats and Republicans are both 
guilty here--imposed moratoria along the entire east and west coasts of 
the United States. There are places in the interior States where, 
because of rules, regulations, slow permitting, lawsuits, and filings 
on behalf of certain groups, the production has slowed down, forcing us 
to continue to increase our imports, year after year. These imports do 
not always come from friendly nations, from nations that share our 
values, but sometimes from nations that are in direct opposition to 
U.S. foreign policy and the democratic values for which we stand.
  My second point is, are we asking something of Alaska that we have 
not asked of other States? The senior Senator from Louisiana showed 
this chart, and Senator Murkowski showed it earlier. It is worth 
showing again. We are only asking to allow drilling in the kind of 
places where other States are already allowing it. Drilling is taking 
place in nine refuges in Texas; 12 in Louisiana; 1 in Mississippi, 1 in 
Alabama. You can see the rest. These are ongoing drilling operations in 
refuges.
  Someone in my office the other day, a great labor leader from 
Louisiana, asked: Senator, why are people against drilling? I was 
trying to explain. I said: Some people said this area is the last great 
place. He said: Would you tell them America is full of great places? 
Louisiana has great places.
  I loved when he said, ``America is full of great places.'' There are 
great places in all of our States. We will preserve them. We will fight 
to keep them wilderness when we can. But when we refuse to tap domestic 
sources of oil and gas that would help our Nation, help our economy, 
create jobs, and release us from our dangerous dependency on imported 
oil and gas, it just makes no sense to me.
  We have been spending a lot of time on this issue because it is at 
the heart of the debate. We have a weak production policy and, I might 
say, a weak conservation policy. That is the wrong direction. We need 
to turn around and go the other way: Strong production and strong 
conservation. If we don't, I predict there will be a huge price to pay. 
We will pay it one way or another, either through the lives of 
servicemen, or through compromised foreign policy. Americans know this. 
There is no free lunch. We don't seem to know that inside the beltway, 
but working Americans of all stripes, of all political backgrounds, 
understand that. It is important. It is about balance. And we need it.
  People say ANWR will not produce a lot of oil, that it will not come 
online for several years--and I agree it will take time. But there is 
enough oil, even using the lowest estimates, to replace the oil we get 
from Saudi Arabia for about 8 to 10, maybe 8 to 12 years.
  Ask the American people, Would you like to drill on our own land, 
land that we control, land that we set regulations on, and that we can 
depend on, or do you want to continue to import oil from Saudi Arabia 
for 15 years? I don't think there would be many Americans who would 
choose the latter.
  The third good reason is jobs. We continue to make decisions in this 
Congress that keep Americans from getting good paying jobs. Every time 
they want to apply for a job, there may as well be a sign that says: 
Congress doesn't think we should drill. So go look elsewhere for work.
  I don't know about the Presiding Officer, but I have thousands of 
people in

[[Page 4845]]

Louisiana who want to work. I have heard Senators say 60,000 jobs 
doesn't matter. This Senator believes 60,000 jobs is a lot of jobs. We 
should allow more production, which will lead to more than 60,000 jobs. 
We should promote investments in conservation and alternative fuels. 
There are lots of jobs, in science and other high-end jobs, associated 
with alternative fuels. Why not have good jobs for both production and 
conservation? Why turn down these job-making opportunities when it is 
so important to produce jobs for people in Louisiana, for people in 
Alaska, for people in Delaware, for people in New Mexico? I don't 
understand it.
  We can create good, skilled jobs, where people can make a very good 
living working 40 or 50 hours, overtime, onshore, offshore, whereby 
they can buy a home, contribute to their community, send their children 
to get an equal or better education than they did. I think it is very 
important.
  The fourth reason we need to support drilling in ANWR besides the 
fact we need it, besides the fact it is balanced, besides the fact we 
are doing it in many other States in the same way we would be asking 
Alaska to contribute, besides the fact that it means thousands and 
thousands of good-paying jobs that people in America would like and 
need at this time, it is the right thing to do for our environment. I 
mean that sincerely. I know I said some things on the floor about some 
environmental organizations, and I believe their positions, with all 
due respect to the great work they have done, are leading this country 
in the wrong direction.
  I work very well with environmental groups in Louisiana and many of 
our environmental groups around the Nation. But I will say it again: 
When we drill and extract resources in America, we can do it in the 
most environmentally sensitive way in the world. Why? Because we have 
the strictest rules and regulations.
  Even the former executive director of the Sierra Club agrees, and he 
is on the record saying that by pushing production out of America, all 
we are doing is damaging the world's environment.
  We have the best rules and the best laws. We have a free press and 
the ability, to punish those who pollute the environment.
  That does not happen in other places around the world, places without 
the same confidence in the law that we can have here in the United 
States. So the pro-environmental position--and I mean this sincerely--
is to drill and explore and extract resources where we can watch it, 
where we can control it and where we can make sure it is done 
correctly.
  If I am wrong I would like someone to come to the floor and tell me: 
Senator, you are not thinking clearly about this.
  Apart from the many troubled parts of the world where production is 
taking place, I don't know where else we would drill. And the saddest 
part of that to me, or the most hypocritical part of that to me, is 
that we consume more than everyone else. If we were not consuming that 
much, I would say fine. But we go to poorer countries with less 
infrastructure, fewer rules, and weaker laws and enforcement, not 
because they need the oil but because we need it. And we degrade the 
environment and support illegitimate regimes because we will not drill 
in our own country. I do not understand it.
  I will make another point about Louisiana. I have heard some of my 
colleagues come to the floor and say: I will not drill in ANWR, but boy 
I will come drill in the Gulf of Mexico.
  I want to show the map of these States that are net producers of 
energy. There are only a few of us. There are only 15. There are only 
15 States in the entire country, just 15, that produce at least 50 
percent of the energy they consume. You can see the States represented 
here.
  We love all of our States, wish them all well, and we are all part of 
this great Union, but the red States on this chart produce less than 
half the energy they consume, which means they do not produce oil, they 
do not produce gas, they do not produce nuclear, they do not produce 
wind, solar, or hydro, but they want their lights to come on whenever 
they want and they want to power their businesses and industries.
  Nobody can look at this map and say this is fair. I know there are 
products produced in some States that other States do not produce. I am 
clear. But there are no moratoria on growing corn, no moratoria on 
growing cotton. People are not opposed to that or think it harms the 
environment to grow corn or grow wheat. But we have a policy growing in 
this country that we do not want to produce anything but we want to 
continue to consume.
  I am for strong conservation measures. I voted against the proposal 
to reduce CAFE standards, not because I don't agree with the goal, but 
because the method was wrong. It would have cost too many jobs in my 
State. There is a better way to get there. I would vote for even more 
stringent measures but not that particular measure.
  There are strong conservation measures that I and many Members 
support. But this attitude has to change. We have to have an attitude 
among all of these States that you either reduce your consumption 
significantly or you decide how to produce the energy. You have your 
choice. You can produce it any way you want. But what you cannot do is 
sit on the sideline, complain and complain, prevent other States from 
drilling, and then just continue to consume.
  I have an amendment. I am thinking about offering this. I hope people 
who vote against ANWR will think about ways we can encourage our 
States, in a fair way, to make their own choices about how they would 
like to generate more energy or consume less, and to put it in balance, 
so our Nation can truly achieve energy independence. I hope we can do 
that.
  Let me show one more chart. This is the Gulf of Mexico. You can see 
the red areas here where there is active drilling. We have been doing 
this now for 50 years. We have made some mistakes. I am the first one 
to admit it. We didn't know all the things that we know now back in the 
1940s and 1950s.
  We did not have the science and the technology. But we have made 
tremendous progress, and we in Louisiana are happy to produce hundreds 
of millions of barrels of oil and gas, and host pipelines that light up 
the Midwest and New York and California. We want to do it. We are proud 
of the industry, and we are getting better and better at it every day.
  But it is grossly unfair for our State, and Mississippi and Alabama 
and Texas, to bear the brunt of this production when other States don't 
want to produce. Then, to pour salt on the wound, we get no portion of 
the revenues that are generated. Taxpayers may not realize this, but 
the royalties that come into the Treasury every time you produce a 
natural resource can keep our personal income taxes lower.
  When we do not drill, royalties do not come into the Treasury, so 
taxes have to go up to support Government. So a fifth really good 
reason to explore natural resources is so we can bring money into the 
Treasury, again in a very balanced approach, and keep taxes minimal for 
taxpayers.
  However, all that money that goes to the Federal Treasury right now, 
from production in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, is not 
shared with those States. Since 1950, we sent $120 billion to the 
Federal Treasury. Louisiana, which has produced the lion's share of the 
offshore production for the whole Nation, has not received a penny.
  This is a true story. I know my time is almost to the end, but I am 
going to end with a couple of points on this. Two years ago the mayor 
of Grande Isle, a tiny little place down here at the foot of Louisiana, 
told me of a lot of their unique problems.
  The mayor called me and said: Senator, I have a problem. I don't have 
a sewer system and a water system that is able to bring the fresh water 
that I need. I have children in school drinking rainwater out of a 
barrel, dipping a cup into a barrel, drinking the rainwater, because we 
do not have the right sewer and water system. Because it is a small 
town, they do not have the necessary resources. I was sitting in my 
office in Washington thinking about these children dipping that cup and 
drinking

[[Page 4846]]

that rainwater. I know if they just looked up and out just a few miles 
they could see a rig, producing the Nation's oil and gas. The money it 
produces is not going to help them get a sewer system which they 
desperately need. It will not help these children get a road so that 
when it floods or the weather is bad they can get to school. That money 
is coming all the way up to Washington for us to spend on all the 
States in the Nation.
  When I ask to have a sewer system for them, I have to come back, ask 
and plead for money from the budget to get the kids in Grande Isle a 
drinking water system. That isn't fair.
  I will propose and will continue to propose that we have more 
drilling and that the communities that host drilling share in those 
revenues. We need infrastructure for the people and families living 
there, for the workers and the businesses that are participating, and 
for the associated environmental impacts, which can be minimal. 
Sometimes they are a little more challenging. But with good science and 
the old yankee ingenuity and southern ingenuity, we can get that done 
for the people of our State.
  In conclusion, I have given five good reasons why this is so 
important.
  Let me close by reading something out of the Atlantic Monthly, ``The 
Tales of a Tyrant'', written by Mark Bowden, author of ``Black Hawk 
Down.'' We are familiar with the incident. Many of us have seen the 
movie. It is very riveting. I would like to read about the kind of 
people from whom we are getting our oil.

       Wearing his military uniform, he walked slowly to the 
     lectern and stood behind two microphones, gesturing with a 
     big cigar. His body and broad face seemed weighted down with 
     sadness. There had been a betrayal, he said. A Syrian plot. 
     There were traitors among them. Then Saddam took a seat, and 
     Muhyi Abd al-Hussein Mashhadi, the secretary-general of the 
     Command Council, appeared from behind a curtain to confess 
     his own involvement in the putsch. He had been secretly 
     arrested and tortured days before; now he spilled out dates, 
     times, and places where the plotters had met. Then he started 
     naming names. As he fingered members of the audience one by 
     one, armed guards grabbed the accused and escorted them from 
     the hall. When one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam 
     shouted back, ``Itla! Itla!''--``Get out! Get out!'' (Weeks 
     later, after secret trials, Saddam had the mouths of the 
     accused taped shut so that they could utter no troublesome 
     last words before their firing squads.) When all of the sixty 
     ``traitors'' had been removed, Saddam again took the podium 
     and wiped tears from his eyes as he repeated the names of 
     those who had betrayed him. Some in the audience, too, were 
     crying--perhaps out of fear. This chilling performance had 
     the desired effect. Everyone in the hall now understood 
     exactly how things would work in Iraq from that day forward.

  If we cannot get enough of the Senate to vote in favor of this 
amendment, in spite of articles like this, because of movies that we 
see, because of headlines like this, and the disruptions not only in 
the Mideast but in Venezuela, I don't know what will make the Members 
of this Senate decide that we must produce where we can produce. We can 
set aside lands where we can set aside land, create jobs for our people 
and security for our Nation.
  I am giving the best I can give. I don't think we have the votes. But 
I submit this for the Record, and hope people will reconsider their 
positions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, under the unanimous consent, I believe 
the Senator from Wisconsin is the next Senator to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendments 
offered by my colleagues from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski and Mr. Stevens. I 
oppose these amendments for several reasons, and I rise to share my 
concerns with my colleagues.
  Energy security is an important issue for America, and one which my 
Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. The bill before us 
initiates a national debate 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 who are raising concerns about 
these amendments. Delegating authority to the President to opening the 
refuge to oil drilling does little to address serious energy issues 
that have been raised in the last few months.
  Though proponents of drilling in the refuge will say that it can be 
done by only opening up drilling on 2,000 acres of the refuge, that is 
simply not the case. The President will decide whether 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.
  I infer that when proponents say that only 2,000 acres will be 
drilled, they are referring to the language in the amendment 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. It does 
not cover seismic or other exploration activities, which have had 
significant effects 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 two thousand 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, what would this mean? Two 
thousand acres is a sizable development area. The development would be 
even more troubling as it is located in areas that are actually 
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.
  The delegation of authority to open the refuge is controversial, and 
make no mistake, it will generate lengthy debate.
  I have also heard concerns from the constituents in my State who have 
paid dearly for large and significant jumps in gasoline prices. 
Invoking the ability to drill in response to a national emergency does 
not add to gasoline supplies today, nor does it do anything to address 
the immediate need of the Federal Government to respond to fluctuations 
in gas prices and help expand refining capacity. In some instances, 
there were reports of prices between $3 to as high as $8 per gallon in 
Wisconsin on September 11 and 12, 2001. The Department of Energy 
immediately assured me that energy supplies were adequate following the 
terrorist attacks, and these increases are 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 jumps can be monitored and controlled.
  And I, along with many other Senators, have constituents who are 
concerned about the environmental effects of this amendment, and what 
it says about our stewardship of lands of wilderness quality.

[[Page 4847]]

  I also oppose opening the refuge for what it will do to the Energy 
bill as a whole. This measure contains important provisions that we 
need to enact into law. In light of the tragic events of September 11, 
a key element of any new energy security policy should be 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 powerplant safety regimes to ensure that they 
continue to operate well. Finally, Americans living downstream from 
hydroelectric dams want to know that they are safe from terrorist 
initiated dam breaching. We must assure them that this existing 
infrastructure is secure.
  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, 
were obviously unthinkable at that time. These are issues that drilling 
in the refuge does not address. But we are a changed country in 
response to September 11, and these are very real issues today, issues 
that must be addressed.
  In addition, there have been significant technological changes in the 
last few months that can help us reduce our dependence upon foreign 
oil. On September 19, 2001, a model year 2002 General Motors Yukon that 
can run on either a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent 
conventional gasoline or conventional gasoline alone rolled off the 
line in my hometown of 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 that 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 under this bill 
to reducing dependence on foreign oil by using domestic energy crops 
and biomass more wisely, and we should pass this bill to reflect our 
new technological capacity.
  I also oppose this amendment because there is a lingering veil of 
concern that special corporate interests would benefit over our 
citizens by this amendment. Oil companies receive a good deal of 
financial assistance in the form of tax breaks from the Federal 
Government to encourage development of domestic oil supplies. I have 
spoken out, for example, against the percentage depletion allowance in 
the mining of hardrock minerals, and its use in the oil sector dwarfs 
the hardrock tax break.
  This longstanding tax break allows those in the oil business to, in 
effect, write off all of their losses. The ostensible reason for the 
depletion allowance is to encourage exploration of oil drilling sites, 
which, presumably, no one would do without such a tax break.
  The oil industry argues that other businesses are allowed to 
depreciate the costs of their manufacturing. But this tax break goes 
well beyond the costs of deducting capital equipment. For example, a 
garment manufacturer can only deduct the original cost of a sewing 
machine, whereas an oil well can produce tax deductions as long as it 
keeps producing oil. So this deduction can amount to many times the 
cost of the original drilling and exploration. The depletion allowance 
is currently set at 15 percent of gross income.
  The current cost to the U.S. Treasury for the depletion allowance 
exceeds $1 billion a year. This deduction can, in some cases, amount to 
100 percent of the company's net income, which means that all 
profitability comes from Government tax subsidies.
  But just in case there is anyone in the oil industry not enjoying 
sufficient profitability, Congress has come up with a number of other 
cushions against the risks of capitalism. Big Oil can immediately 
deduct 70 percent of the costs of setting up an operation of the so-
called intangible drilling cost deduction. Other industries have to 
deduct such costs over the life of the operation, so this amounts to 
another interest-free loan from the Treasury. It also amounts to a 
double deduction, since the depletion allowance is supposed to 
compensate the poor oil producer for the costs of risking a dry well. 
Repealing this deduction would save more than $2.5 billion over the 
next 5 years.
  Another tax subsidy encourages oil companies to go after oil reserves 
that are more difficult than usual to extract, such as those that have 
already been mostly depleted, or that contain especially viscous crude. 
This, of course, is more expensive than normal oil drilling. Thus the 
``enhanced oil recovery'' credit helps to subsidize those extra costs. 
The net effect of this is that we taxpayers are paying for domestic oil 
that costs almost twice as much as foreign supplies.
  The combined effect of the depletion allowance, the intangible 
drilling cost deduction, the enhanced oil recovery credit, and other 
subsidies can sometimes exceed 100 percent of the value of the energy 
produced by the subsidized oil. This makes no economic sense at all. I 
make these points because the taxpayers already give the oil sector a 
great deal of assistance, and now we are being asked to give up 
additional public lands as well.
  Before we allow the President to open more public lands, I think we 
should be mindful of the help these industries are already getting.
  I also am concerned about the effect of a decision to open the refuge 
to oil drilling on resources that we have already designated for 
special protection. The 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
contains 8 million acres of wilderness that Congress has already 
designated. The amendment proposes to essentially trade wilderness 
designation for other areas in the refuge, 1.5 million acres in the 
southern portion of the refuge for the 1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain. 
The existing wilderness areas in the refuge, however, are immediately 
adjacent to the Coastal Plain. I am concerned that the President would 
permit drilling on the Coastal Plain of the refuge before Congress 
considers whether or not the Coastal Plain should be designated as 
wilderness. Establishment of drilling on the Coastal Plain would be 
allowing a use that is generally considered to be incompatible with 
areas designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. We have had 
very little discussion about the effect of drilling in the refuge on 
the wilderness areas that we have already designated. I want colleagues 
to be aware that the drilling question threatens not only our ability 
to make future wilderness designations in the Coastal Plain but also 
could endanger areas that we have already designated as wilderness in 
the public trust.
  Colleagues should keep in mind that the criteria established in this 
amendment that the President must certify in his determination to open 
of the Coastal Plain as a source of oil do not include any new 
developments or changes in the geological information or economics that 
affect potential development of Arctic resources. The United States 
Geological Survey has already reconsidered those factors in its 1998 
reassessment of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain's oil potential. 
Rather, the current discussion, in my view, is prompted by the rhetoric 
and opportunistic efforts of those interests that have long advocated 
drilling in the Arctic Refuge, to exploit the current response with 
regard to terrorism.
  If drilling may impair our ability to make a decision about the 
present and future wilderness qualities of the refuge, if the refuge 
does not contain as much oil as we thought, and if opening the Coastal 
Plain to drilling may do little to affect our current domestic prices, 
why, then, are we considering doing this? The facts don't point toward 
drilling in the refuge: the refuge may not contain as much oil as we 
think, and opening the Coastal Plain to drilling may have only a minor 
effect on our current domestic prices.

[[Page 4848]]

  I raise these issues because I have grave concerns about the 
arguments that oil drilling and environmental protection are 
compatible. I traveled, a while ago, through the Niger Delta region of 
Nigeria by boat, where I observed firsthand the environmental 
devastation caused by the oil industry. The terrible stillness of an 
environment that should be teeming with life made a very powerful 
impression on me. These are the same multinational companies that have 
access to the same kinds of technologies, and though they are operating 
in a vastly different regulatory regime, I was profoundly struck by the 
environmental legacy of oil development in another ecologically rich 
coastal area.
  For these reasons, I oppose this amendment. I appreciate the 
fundamental concern that we need to develop a new energy strategy for 
this country. I do disagree strongly, however, with drilling in this 
location, which I feel is deserving of wilderness designation. I think 
this bill achieves its objectives without damaging the refuge, and I 
encourage colleagues to oppose these amendments.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the majority leader has authorized me to 
announce there will be no rollcall votes this evening.
  I would like to make a unanimous consent request. I have spoken to 
both managers of the bill. We have, in the unanimous consent queue that 
is now established, Senator Dorgan speaking for 20 minutes. Senator 
Dorgan is not going to speak. So in place of that 20 minutes, I ask 
unanimous consent to amend the order to put in Senator Stabenow for 10 
minutes and Senator Murray for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am continually amazed by the 
ability--and I am sorry my friend from Wisconsin has left the Chamber--
to generalize because that is what we are doing here. There is a 
generalization that somehow the oil industry's application in Africa is 
perhaps applicable to Alaska. These tactics I find unacceptable 
because, first of all, we have invited many Members of this body to 
come up and see for themselves.
  You might not like oilfields. That is the business of each and every 
Member. But the best oilfield in the world is Prudhoe Bay. It is 30-
year-old technology. What bothers me about this general criticism is 
nobody seems to care where oil comes from as long as they get it. The 
Senator from Wisconsin generalized on several aspects, implying that 
somehow the limitation in this bill of a 2,000-acre disturbance was 
broader than that.
  Let me read what is in the bill. It ensures 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 pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the Coastal Plain. I 
don't know what could be more understood than that statement.
  Furthermore, to suggest that exploration is a permanent footprint on 
the land begs the issue. Here is what exploration looks like in the 
summertime on a particular area that was drilled. The reality will show 
you that the footprint is certainly manageable. To suggest somehow that 
that particular activity, because of the advanced technology, is 
incompatible with this area is really selling American ingenuity, 
technology, and American jobs short.
  The Senator from Wisconsin didn't indicate at all the concern of the 
jobs associated with this. He didn't concern himself as to where we 
would get the oil. He simply said he didn't think it should come from 
this area. He talked about the flow of technology, refuge and 
wilderness.
  Let me show you the map one more time. It has been pointed out again 
and again, but perhaps some Members are not watching closely enough. 
They simply assume that the ANWR Coastal Plain is wilderness. Congress 
specifically designated it as a specific area outside the wilderness. 
It is the 1002. Only Congress can open it. It is the Coastal Plain.
  Within ANWR there are almost 8.5 million acres of wilderness. There 
are 9 million acres of refuge and 1.5 million in the Coastal Plain. 
What we proposed--and nobody has mentioned--is the creation of another 
1.5 million acres of wilderness.
  It is time that Members, before they come to the Chamber, familiarize 
themselves with what is in the amendment. It is a 2,000-acre 
limitation. Not too many people want to recognize that. They suggest 
the entire area is at risk. That is ridiculous. We have an export ban. 
Oil from the refuge cannot be exported. We have an Israeli exemption 
providing an exemption for exports to Israel, under an agreement we 
have had which expires in the year 2004. We are going to extend it to 
the year 2014.
  As I have indicated, we have a wilderness designation, an additional 
1.5 million acres which would be added to the wilderness out of the 
refuge. Here is the chart that shows that. We are adding to the 
wilderness.
  If that doesn't salve the conscience of some Members who believe that 
is the price we should pay, I don't know what does.
  Finally, we have a Presidential finding. This amendment does not open 
ANWR. ANWR is opened only if the President certifies to Congress that 
exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources 
in ANWR's Coastal Plain are in the national economic and security 
interests of the United States.
  We leave all kinds of things up to the President around here. 
Declarations of war are often, in effect, handled by the President 
rather than the Congress--in the informal stage, at least. We think it 
is a pretty important responsibility. We are giving that responsibility 
to the President. Yet those from the other side, I don't know whether 
they begrudge, distrust, or whatever, because it happens to be in the 
President's energy proposal that we open up the area, and that is good 
enough for me.
  The amendment does not open ANWR. It will only be opened if the 
President certifies to the Congress that exploration, development, and 
production of oil and gas resources of the ANWR Coastal Plain are in 
the national economic and security interests of this country.
  What does that mean? It means different things to different people, I 
suppose one might say. From the standpoint of at least my 
interpretation from the former senior Senator from Oregon, Mark 
Hatfield, the statement I opened with, I would vote to open up ANWR 
anytime rather than send another young man or woman to fight a war in a 
foreign land over oil. We did that in 1992. We lost 148 lives. At that 
time, we were substantially less dependent on imported oil.
  Make no mistake about it. Our minority leader, Senator Lott, 
indicated in his statement the vulnerability of this country. Our 
Secretary of State has not been able to bring the parties together in 
the Mideast. It remains volatile. The situation in Venezuela is 
unclear. The estimates are this Nation has lost 30 percent of the 
available crude oil imports that we previously enjoyed--that is an 
interruption--as a consequence of Saddam Hussein terminating production 
for 30 days. We have reason to believe Colombia is on the verge of some 
kind of an interruption which will terminate the oil through their 
pipeline. This is a crisis.
  The reason you don't see Members coming down here and saying, ``I 
guess we had better do something about it now,'' is very clear. The 
shoe is not pinching enough. The prices are not high enough. I would 
hate to say there are not enough lives at risk.
  Members could very well rue the day on this vote, recognizing the 
influence of America's environmental community on this issue. I think 
everyone who is familiar with oil development in Alaska understands 
that we consume this oil that we produce in Alaska. It is jobs in 
America. It is U.S. ships built in American shipyards. These are the 
facts. By not recognizing the real commitment we have to doing business 
in

[[Page 4849]]

America, we are going to have to get that oil overseas.
  When the Senator from Wisconsin generalizes about oilfields, he 
doesn't give us the credit for the advanced technology moving from 
Prudhoe Bay to the next major oilfield we found in Alaska called 
Endicott. Endicott was 56 acres. It was the 10th largest producing 
field. Those are the kinds of technological advancements we have in 
this country.
  As a consequence, I am prepared to continue to respond to those 
inaccuracies. It is a shame we have to subject ourselves to the 
pandering associated with interpretations that have nothing to do with 
the extent of the risk associated to our national security at this 
time.
  The risk is very real. The risk may go beyond the risk associated 
with just a political view of this issue. In this amendment, we are 
giving the President of the United States the authority to make this 
determination. I would like to think every Member of this body values 
not only the President but his office to see what is in the best 
interest of our country, our Nation, and our national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________