The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“SENATE VOTES” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S12284-S12297 on Dec. 3, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
SENATE VOTES
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about two important votes we will have in a few hours, one on the Railroad Retirement Act and the other on the amendment introduced by the Senate Republican leader, which is an energy plan that includes authorization to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I thank and congratulate my friend and colleague from Minnesota for the outstanding statement he made on this issue. I believe the debate thus far on the question of drilling in the Arctic Refuge has revealed a record that is not quite what the proponents of drilling have argued and portrayed. That, at least, shows we should not be pressured to pass such significant legislation in a hurried or cursory fashion. It is not wise for the Senate to rush into a decision that will have a permanent impact and, in fact, do permanent damage to our environment, our national energy strategy, and our national values while at the same time being of little value to the American people.
I will discuss some of the contentions made by proponents of drilling our refuge and offer some comments.
Proponents of drilling have argued that the Inupiat Eskimos in the town of Kaktovik are being deprived of their right to drill on refuge land that they own in fee simple. I was struck by that argument when it was made Friday when I was in the Chamber.
I have done a little research over the weekend. I find that the Inupiat Eskimos have rights to the surface of lands adjacent to the town of Kaktovik. The Eskimos also were granted subsurface rights by Secretary of the Interior Watt to over 90,000 acres that are adjacent to their town. But those rights were speculative--only granting the right to drill if Congress authorized oil and gas drilling under the surface of the Arctic Refuge.
A 1989 GAO report investigating the transfer of these subsurface rights found that the transfer actually resulted in a profit for Kaktovik even without any oil and gas development.
The point I am making is that no promises have been broken to the Inupiat people. In fact, they were never granted the right to drill in the refuge. That has been clear from the beginning.
I will work with all of my colleagues, as I know the occupant of the chair does, to do everything I can to ensure that the Inupiat people are able to continue to sustain and improve their quality of life. But we have to do so in a manner that is in our national interest and does not sacrifice one of our great national treasures. We must also realize that other Native Americans in Alaska strongly oppose any drilling.
Last Friday I mentioned the plight of the Gwich'in of Arctic Village who depend on the Porcupine caribou herd to sustain their lives and their culture. Today I will read from a letter by the city of Nuiqsut, sitting in the shadow of the Alpine oil field on the North Slope. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
City of Nuiqsut,
Nuiqsut, AK, April 11, 2001.Letter from City Council to Cumulative Effects Committee
Members.
Patricial Cochran,Representative/Member, National Research Council, National
Academy of Sciences.
Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for coming to Nuiqsut and seeking our input on the cumulative effects of oil and gas development on our community and the North Slope. Your tight schedule did not allow us to fully share all of our comments with you, so we write today to summarize our thoughts and supplement our comments. This summary is not meant in any way to be a substitute for the heart felt comments you heard at the meeting or the written testimony that was carefully prepared for you and submitted to you at the meeting. It is only a supplement to those thoughts and comments and a request for further consideration of our views in the report that you prepare.
The impact of oil and gas development on our village has been far reaching. As you now know first hand from your visit, we are literally surrounded by the infrastructure to produce oil and gas. This has affected our day-to-day lives in several ways. Our ability to hunt and gather traditional foods has been severely impacted by development, as you heard from everyone who spoke at the meeting. You were provided many examples of how various species have been affected, and how we have had to react and adjust to those changes. You were also told how the land that we consider ours and from which we subsist has in some cases been lost because we did not fill out the right paperwork and/or look at the right maps.
Additionally, oil and gas development has brought many more people to our village that is not permanent residents, but instead come and goes for work. Very few of these individuals have integrated well into our community. There are widespread feelings of distrust and frustration amongst villagers and the workers who come from outside the community, despite efforts to develop trust with one another. We do not fully understand each other's cultures and we resent each other still, despite our mutual efforts to get to know one another and to get along.
Development has increased the smog and haze in our air and sky, affecting our health as well as the beauty of our land, sea, and air. Drugs and alcohol traffic have increased as development has grown; the ice road that reduces our freight costs also increases the flow of illegal substances into our community. The stress of integrating a new way of life with generations of traditional teachings has led some to alcohol and drug abuse, a phenomenon unknown before white people came to Alaska and greatly exacerbated by the recent spate of growth associated with North Slope oil and gas development and for us in Nuiqsut, even more exacerbated by growth associated with Alpine.
However, like all Alaskans, we have also benefited from oil and gas development. The State and Borough have more money to spend on community facilities, schools, modern water and sewer system, and similar projects. The City has also received funds to mitigate some of the impacts of development. At the individual level, we each receive a permanent fund dividend every year that is funded by excellent investment of state money, some of which came originally from oil and gas royalties and taxes. We hope to have low cost natural gas heating our homes and running our electric plant in the near future because of a unique arrangement between Phillips, Kuukpik--our local village corporation, the City, and other community interests.
But money and modern amenities are not in and of themselves significant enough trade offs. We urge the Committee to appreciate the reality that, in the eyes of most of us, to date, the negative effects of oil and gas development have equaled or outweighed the positives. We encourage you to include with your findings information that will encourage policy makers to work harder to shift the balance of much more to the positive side. As was stated at the meeting, we do not reject the cash economy and know that the clock of time cannot be turned back. We wish instead to become fuller participants in the cash economy and in the decisions that are made about future development, while maintaining our cultural ties to the past through our subsistence lifestyle. This is the essence of self-determination.
With that in mind, we urge you to include as a finding in your report that one cumulative effect of development has been that subsistence resources of local residents have been displaced and altered, based on the information provided to you at our meeting as well as testimony you have received from state and federal agencies and other sources.
Another cumulative effect that should be included in your report is that we have not been provided with enough well paying, highly skilled North Slope oil and gas jobs. Although some steps have been taken to increase local hire, a lot more needs to be done. Very few villagers are employed at Alpine or even on the entire Slope. A long-term commitment needs to be made to train villagers to get the skills to get and--importantly--to keep those jobs. Villagers and industry representatives need to work together to develop a jobs program in which villagers commit to working regular hours on a long-term basis and industry commits to allow villagers to take time off for subsistence activities without losing their jobs.
Further, we urge you to include as a finding in your report that villagers have not been fully integrated into decision making regarding where development has occurred and what facilities will be used to extract the oil and gas from the ground. We need to be consulted more often and more fully on decisions that are made regarding permitting, the impacts of development on the land, sea, air and animals, and choices for placement of pads, roads, mines, pits, pipelines, and other aspects of infrastructure development. If we are consulted and listened to, we will work to get future pipelines underground and/or well above the antlers of the tallest caribou, to end use of fish bearing lake water for ice roads, to prohibit seismic scaring of the tundra, to prohibit offshore and other outer continental shelf development, and to take other measures in response to the cumulative effects that have already occurred to the land, sea, air, and people of the North Slope.
In conclusion, we again thank you for your interest in the issues we face, and look forward to your findings. We respectfully reiterate that we practice subsistence as a lifestyle, not as a sport. We wish to continue to do so for generations into the future. Only with careful consideration of our input into future oil and gas development will that be possible. We sincerely hope that a longer-term cumulative effect of oil and gas development on the Slope is not the total destruction of our subsistence way of life.
Sincerely,
City of Nuiqsut Council Members:Eli Nukapigak,
Mayor.Rosemary Ahtuangaruak,
Vice Mayor.Ruth Nukapigak,
Member.Mae Masuleak,
Member.Hazel Panigeo,
Member.Rhoda Bennett,
Member.Frank Long,
Member.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. According to the Native Americans, the impact of oil drilling has been ``far reaching.'' They provide some specific statements:
Our ability to hunt and gather traditional foods has been severely impacted. Development has increased the smog and haze in our sky, affecting our health as well as the beauty of our land sea and air.
Obviously, the people of Nuiqsut do not believe they have benefited from oil exploration, and they hope we will learn a lesson from their experience.
We have also been asked to conclude that the wildlife in the reserve will interact happily with oil pipelines if they are built there. A picture was shown the other day of bears. I was advised that the bears in the pictures were not stuffed animals. Indeed, they were not. Unlike stuffed animals, they need real wilderness habitat to survive.
I received a letter over the weekend from Mr. Ken Whitten, a retired Alaska State fish and game biologist who worked 24 years on the North Slope. Mr. Whitten felt compelled to respond to the proponents of drilling and specifically to the picture of a mother bear and cubs shown last week. I quote from the letter: Most bear cubs that have grown up in the oil fields have eventually been shot as problem bears, either in the oil field support area or at isolated villages and camps outside the oil field.
Thus, the story of the three bears in the photo does not have a fairy tale ending. Three different bear groups, each consisting of a sow and two cubs, have been seen walking pipelines in the oil field recently. All three bears in one group and two cubs in another had to be shot last summer after they became habituated to human food and repeatedly broke into buildings and parked vehicles.
I ask unanimous consent Mr. Whitten's comments be printed in the Record in full.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Comments of Kenneth R. Whitten on Remarks by Senator Murkowski
As a retired state fish and game biologist who worked 24 years on Alaska's North Slope, I am once again disappointed that Senator Murkowski has misinformed his fellow senators regarding the effects of oil development on the wildlife and wilderness environment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In this regard, I'd like to comment on the Senator's statements about bears and caribou and also on his continued misuse of a photograph I took myself.
On the floor of the Senate last Thursday, Senator Murkowski showed a photo of three grizzly bears walking on top of an elevated pipeline at Prudhoe Bay. What the Senator failed to point out is that most bear cubs that have grown up in the oilfields have eventually been shot as problem bears, either in the oilfield support area or at isolated villages and camps outside the oilfield. Thus the story of the three bears in the Senator's photo doesn't have a fairy tale ending. Three different bear groups, each consisting of a sow and two cubs, have been seen walking pipelines in the oilfield recently. All three bears in one group and two cubs in another had to be shot last summer after they became habituated to human food and repeatedly broke into buildings and parked vehicles. The bears in the third family are all currently alive, but unfortunately it is highly probable that the remaining cubs, at least, will get into trouble next summer and have to be killed. The major oil companies may do a good job of keeping garbage away from bears and thus avoiding conflicts, but bear problems are rampant in the industrial support area where workers and visitors are not as well regulated.
Caribou are not attracted to the oilfields, despite Senator Murkowski's assertion that caribou flock to Prudhoe Bay and thrive there because they are protected from hunting. Caribou generally avoid the oilfields during their calving period. Later in the summer, larger groups occasionally enter the fields, but have trouble moving through the maze of pipes, roads, and industrial activity. Hunting is legally restricted in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield only, and not in other North Slope fields, although oil company policies discourage hunting. Hunting occurs on state and federal lands around the oilfields, but is conservatively regulated so as not to harm the caribou populations. The caribou herd around Prudhoe Bay has increased because of generally favorable environmental conditions over the past 25 years, as have other caribou herds on the North Slope. During a brief period of bad weather in the late 1980s, caribou near the oilfields had poor calf production compared to caribou in areas away from the oilfields. The population declined at that time.
Also on the Senate floor last Thursday, Senator Murkowski showed a photograph over which he said he had previously gotten into an argument with Senator Boxer. I took that photograph. At various times Senator Murkowski has stated that the photo is a fake or that it was not taken on the ANWR coastal plain. In fact, that was the gist of his argument last year with Senator Boxer. The photo was taken from a rooftop at an abandoned DEWline station at Beaufort Lagoon on the ANWR coastal plain. It looks across the lagoon to the coastal plain filled with caribou and with snowcapped peaks in the distance. After the dispute with Senator Boxer, Murkowski had to admit that the photo was indeed from the coastal plain, but he told reporters that the fact it was taken from an old military site proves that the coastal plain is not pristine wilderness (he was apparently unaware that the site had been removed and no longer existed when he made those remarks). Murkowski now claims he has confirmation from the photographer that the photo was taken from a window in Kaktovik village. The Senator just can't seem to get it right. He now emphasizes that the mountains are not on the coastal plain. The point he keeps trying to make is that the ANWR coastal plain is a barren hostile place, with no beautiful mountains or pretty scenery, and we should therefore just go ahead and drill it. He can't seem to deal with the fact that the plain is rimmed on the south by the highest peaks of the Brooks Range, that many people find it beautiful, and that during summer the coastal plain teams with abundant wildlife.
Senator Murkowski seems willing to go to any length to convince us that we can improve national security and protect wildlife by drilling the coastal plain, but there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect wildlife through energy conservation. The evidence for that is irrefutable.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I also contest a characterization of support for this proposal. Contrary to what has been said, it is clear that the American labor movement is not universally enthusiastic about this bill. In fact, the well of union support is drying up. Many unions, including the largest union in America, SEIU, and the United Steelworkers of America, see more jobs in investing in the technologies of the future.
Why are the union members lining up in opposition to the drilling plan? The fact is a broad range of union members and leaders understand that a strategic long-term energy strategy is a much more effective way to help spur the production not only of energy but of permanent jobs in a wide range of economic sectors. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge represents a distraction from the real needs of our economy and the real needs of the working people of America.
The other alternatives I cite: investments in efficiency, conservation, and alternative energy sources, are realistic, strategic, and ready to go. It is disappointing to me that in this era of dramatic technological progress in so many areas of human activity, we readily celebrate the advances, including in the fields of oil exploration, but fail to see the promise of this next age of alternative efficient energy technologies.
According to a recent study by the Tellis Institute, investments in new energy technologies could result in a net annual increase in jobs in America of over 700,000 by 2010, rising to approximately 1.3 million jobs in 2020. Those are the technologies of the future, providing high-
paying, permanent jobs to America's workers.
There is also another proposal for the North Slope of Alaska that will bring more jobs and more economic stimulus than drilling for oil in the refuge. That is the building of a natural gas pipeline to bring that energy source to the lower 48 States. According to estimates from the oil industry and from the State of Alaska, this project would bring hundreds of thousands of jobs to American workers and is far preferable to the proposed oil drilling in the refuge. In one sense, this is perhaps the first plan I have seen that is myopic and hyperopic. It may need bifocals. It fails to take the long-term interests of our economy and environment into consideration and simultaneously fails to deliver any immediate benefit to the American people. In fact, it is a short-
term distraction in what should be our real energy program strategy and a long-term danger.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Secretaries of the Interior under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
November 30, 2001.Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,U.S. Senate,Washington, DC.
[Senator Akaka]: In this time of national crisis, we urge the Senate to focus on the most important issues to the country. Railroad retirement legislation and economic stimulus packages are the wrong forum to be debating complex energy legislation or deciding the fate of one of our country's greatest wilderness and wildlife treasures--the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Majority Leader Tom Daschle has pledged to bring energy legislation to the floor in the near future.
We hope you will oppose efforts to attach energy provisions to economic or national security legislation, and we strongly urge you to vote against drilling in the Arctic Refuge regardless of the legislative vehicle.
Each of us, as former Secretaries of the Interior, made decisions balancing the goal of developing the energy resources of our public lands with that of conserving and protecting the wildlife and wilderness resources of those same public lands for future generations. In the case of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we continue to believe that the value of its unique wildlife and wilderness resources far outweighs the potential benefits of development.
It is worth noting that protection of this unique resource was first proposed by our colleague Fred Seaton, who headed Interior under President Eisenhower. Secretary Seaton stressed the unique wilderness values of this `biologically irreplaceable land,' which was ultimately set aside under President Eisenhower's order `for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values.'
In the forty years since the establishment of what was then known as the Arctic Wildlife Range, the case for protecting its wildlife and wilderness resources has only become stronger. We have opened major portions of the Arctic slope to oil development, which now dominates the landscape from the Canning River all the way to the Colville. Most recently, leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve has resulted in a number of successful exploration wells west of the Colville. Although industry practices and oil field technology have both improved over the years, anyone who has been to the Prudhoe Bay complex will tell you that oil development there has permanently changed the character of the land. In this context, protecting the biologically richest and most pristine part of the coastal plain is the right thing to do. Nowhere else on the American continent can be found such a wealth of wildlife in an undisturbed environment. The annual migration of the Porcupine River Caribou Herd, on which the Gw'ichin communities of Alaska and Canada depend for subsistence, remains one of the last great wildlife spectacles on earth.
Our park, refuge, and wilderness systems are a living legacy for all Americans, present and future, and are widely envied and emulated around the world. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the greatest of these treasures and is clearly the most precious of the crown jewels of Alaska. It must be protected.
Sincerely,Bruce Babbitt.Cecil D. Andrus.Stewart L. Udall.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Secretaries point out the value of the land in question here, the Arctic Refuge. They quote the Secretary of the Interior under President Eisenhower. It was Eisenhower who originally created this refuge.
That letter states that the area was:
biologically irreplaceable land that should be put aside for the purpose of preserving the unique wildlife wilderness and recreational values.
As the signatories' letter points out, the 40 years since Secretary Seaton's comments have only strengthened the case that this is a unique wildlife and recreational area of our country and deserves to be preserved. I ask my colleagues to please vote against cloture on the amendment, the Lott amendment to the railroad retirement bill.
In summary, drilling in the refuge pales in comparison to more environmentally sound and strategic energy alternatives. Drilling in the refuge will do nothing to provide energy independence, providing a mere 6-month supply of oil that will not come on line for a decade. Drilling will do almost nothing to stimulate our economy, providing some short-term jobs when we can provide a much greater, longer term stimulus for our economy by undertaking projects such as the natural gas pipeline from Prudhoe Bay and increasing our investment in new and emerging technologies.
Finally, our values teach us that not every available natural resource should be exploited. Our values encourage us to respect the Earth, the treasures that the Good Lord gave us here in America, and to approach them with some humility, not to try to squeeze every last ounce of energy or anything else out of every square foot of Earth, regardless of the cost or the loss that is engendered thereby.
Nature reminds us of our humanity. It inspires us. It helps to comfort us when we are hurt. It gives us opportunities for recreation.
This is a time not to ignore but to recall the great American spirit of conservation which seeks, in every generation, to preserve the great natural places in America so those generations that follow us will enjoy them, have the right and opportunity to enjoy them as much as we have.
I believe this expresses the interests and the values of the American people. I hope my colleagues will stand with those interests and values in voting against cloture on the Lott amendment when it comes up later this afternoon.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if my friend will yield for a question.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I believe my time is up, but I will certainly yield for a question.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Does the Senator from Connecticut have any idea how long this issue has been before the Senate, how many hearings we held on this matter over the years?
I think it is important because I believe the statement was made we should not be rushing into anything.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me clarify that the time of the Senator from Connecticut has expired. This will be charged to the time of the Senator from Alaska, who is recognized.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Factually, if the Senator doesn't know, I would like to advise him.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I can tell the Senator respectfully, I have been here 13 years and I know it has been an issue all that time, and I know it was debated for some time before that. My point was, though, that I think some of the contentions made on the floor in the back and forth of the debate in the last several days at least leave uncertainty. In that spirit of uncertainty, we do better to come back and debate this proposal in full, as I guess we will, after the first of next year.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. For the edification of my friend from Connecticut, there have been 50 bills introduced on this topic. There have been over 60 hearings. We have had 5 markups of committee jurisdiction, in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Legislation authorizing the opening of ANWR has passed the House twice. A conference report authorizing the opening of ANWR passed the Senate in 1995. It was vetoed by President Clinton.
If you review the history, I think it is a little misleading to imply that suddenly we are rushing into this matter without a good deal of debate and thought. It is the same exact argument that was used in the 1970s, prior to the authorization of opening up Prudhoe Bay and building the pipeline. It was fostered by America's extreme environmental community which is again fostering the debate. There has been no sound science to suggest that opening Prudhoe Bay has resulted in an economic disaster or resulted in the decimation of the caribou herd, the central Arctic herd. These are alarmist tactics we have heard time and time again and it is evident Members are soliciting the support based on America's environmental community.
Years ago, we had a full EIS on the opening. Still, at a time when we are looking at calamities in the Mideast--the situation in Israel, the danger associated with our national security--I find it extraordinary that Members would look for excuses rather than sound science in addressing the merits of this legislation.
Had President Clinton not vetoed that legislation in 1995, ANWR would be on line now. When the Senator continues to use the ``6-month supply of oil,'' he is really misleading the American public. He knows that definition is only applicable if there is no other oil coming into the United States, imported or produced in the United States. I think we should keep the debate on a factual level as opposed to a misleading level.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask the Chair, it is my understanding we each have 10 minutes, is that correct, in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I certainly understand the pro-
ponents----
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Excuse me, Mr. President, may I interrupt. I think we have time remaining on either side; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I beg your pardon?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I believe there is time remaining on either side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. The Senate will be in morning business until the hour of 4:45, at which time there will be 30 minutes equally divided on either side to debate the Lott amendment. Until then, Senators may proceed for 10 minutes each, time to be designated between the sides.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. May I ask the Chair how much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In total? One hour sixteen seconds remain.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I repeat, 1 hour 16 whole seconds--16 minutes, I am advised.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry. I did not hear. On the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 30 minutes remaining on the other side.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will start again. I know the proponents--and certainly the Senator from Alaska stands out in this matter of drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge--feel strongly about their position. But there are those of us who feel just as strongly the National Wildlife Refuge should remain, as it has always been, our Nation's last protected Arctic wilderness.
The Senator from Alaska was asking the Senator from Connecticut about how long this has been going on. I have been here 11 years. I remember the first filibuster I was involved in was against this. We were successful. I think we will be successful again.
In the last 11 years, I have heard a lot of arguments about why we should drill, but none of them hold up to scrutiny.
In 1991, we had the debate on the energy bill, and we were told that the Trans-Alaska pipeline would run dry by the turn of the century without drilling the refuge. Today, even the oil companies acknowledge having enough oil to keep the Trans-Alaska pipeline flowing for at least another 30 years and perhaps another 40 years.
In 1995, we were told drilling the refuge was necessary to balance the Federal budget. But we managed to balance the budget without these speculative revenues, and by the way, it would have stayed that way without the irresponsible tax cut passed earlier this year. Instead, what do my Republican colleagues do? It is not part of this amendment--
on the House side, $30 billion of tax credits for oil companies that made about $40 billion last year in profits.
What other arguments have we heard? Earlier this year, we were told that we should drill the refuge to deal with California's electricity crisis. Never mind the fact the State gets less than 1 percent of its electricity from oil.
Then we were told to drill to bring the prices down at the pump. Never mind the fact the prices are set on the global market and that as the Governor of Alaska has even acknowledged, there is a zero sum relationship between Alaskan oil and prices paid by working families for gasoline or home heating oil.
I find it ironic that the same Senators who call for drilling in the Arctic Refuge have nothing at all to say about the wave of oil company mergers. I say to my colleagues, if you were so concerned about consumers and about the prices that working families pay at the pump, where were you when Exxon and Mobil merged? When BP took over Amoco? When BP took over Arco? And now when Phillips and Conoco are seeking Government approval?
So what is today's flavor? What's today's argument? The Senator from Alaska says we need to drill the refuge as part of our campaign to combat terror--as a way to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Let us look at the facts:
According to the oil industry's own testimony before the Senate Energy Committee, it would take at least a decade to tap even a drop of oil from the refuge. Furthermore, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated, with oil prices at $20 per barrel, there is only 3.2 billion barrels of commercially recoverable oil in the refuge--not in one field, but spread out in potentially dozens of small pockets all across the Delaware-sized Coastal Plain.
I know the Senator from Alaska argues there's alot more than that. But here is what the USGS said in its report: ``We conclude that there are no Prudhoe Bay-sized accumulations in the 1002 area. . . .''
The bottom line is this: Drilling the Arctic Refuge, even under the optimistic estimates, would be unlikely to ever meet more than 1-2 percent of our oil needs, even at peak production. In fact, we could drill every national park and wildlife refuge in America and we'd still be importing the majority of our oil.
The answer, clearly, is to look to the future. What can we do instead? By increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars and trucks by just 3 miles per gallon, we can save more than 1 million barrels of oil a day or five times the amount of oil the refuge might produce. This would do far more to clean the air, reduce prices for consumers, and make us less dependent on imported oil.
The fact is a focus on renewable energy and saved energy is our future: Households that generate electricity from rooftop solar arrays, farmers who harvest an additional ``crop'' by the winds that blow over their fields, or the biomass waste that is generated, and city streets inhabited by quiet and pollution-free electric vehicles.
Do we want real energy security? Former CIA Director James Woolsey recently testified that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is one of the more vulnerable parts of our energy infrastructure; that, even if you had no environmental objection, it would not make a whole lot of sense to become more dependent on the pipeline.
I don't know whether he is right or wrong. But I do think we need to become much less dependent on oil as a resource and that doing so will enhance our security, help consumers, and provide for a healthier environment.
Renewable energy, alternative fuels, and increased efficiency are the keys to the future. They are, as Woolsey testified, less vulnerable to terrorism. They also make America less vulnerable to the wild price swings caused by the OPEC cartel. I certainly look forward to this kind of energy policy for our country.
In conclusion, let me say this: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure worth far more as a lasting legacy for future generations than plundered for a short-term speculative supply of oil that will not enhance our security or help consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture and help us move onto the Railroad Retirement bill and other important matters at hand.
There is a marriage we can make, and it has to do with this nexus between how we produce and consume energy and the environment. We can--
no pun intended--barrel, not down the oil path, we can barrel down the path of renewable energy: wind, solar, biomass, electricity, biodiesel--clean alternative fuels, safe energy, efficient energy use, small business, clean technology, keep capital in our community, stop acid rain in lakes, stop polluting the environment: the air, the water, and the land.
This is a marriage made in heaven, and it should be made right here in our own country.
I know the oil companies do not like this. I know that is not their future. But it is the future for consumers in our country. Coming from Minnesota, a cold-weather State at the other end of the pipeline, it is a no-brainer. When we import barrels of oil and natural gas, we export billions of dollars from our State--probably about $12 billion a year. That is not our future.
We have an answer. A lot of it comes from rural Minnesota, it comes from farm country. It is a far better path. Put the emphasis on renewable energy policy and safe energy. Put the emphasis on small business, on technology, keeping capital in our community, and on the environment. As the Catholic bishop said 15 years ago, we are all but strangers and guests on this land. That is the direction in which we should be going.
That is why I am strongly opposed to this amendment introduced by the Senator from Alaska.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am continually amused and continually astounded by the general statements by my colleagues on the other side who have never taken the time, despite the invitations that have been extended, to visit this area themselves and to talk to the Native people and see indeed that they, too, have hopes and aspirations for a lifetime opportunity of jobs, of health care, and education.
The Senator from Connecticut made a comment about the letter he received. What he didn't tell you is that every child in that village has an opportunity to go to college. Believe me, that child would not have that opportunity without the oil activity associated with Alpine.
This whole debate is a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen promulgated by America's environmental community, which uses this as a tool for membership and dollars. These are the same arguments that were used 27 years ago against opening up Prudhoe Bay: You can't build an 800-mile pipeline across the length of Alaska because you are putting a fence across Alaska; the moose and the caribou won't be able to move from side to side; it is a hot pipeline; it is in permafrost; it is going to melt; it is going to break.
Where would we be today without that particular project and Prudhoe Bay that has supplied the Nation with 20 to 25 percent of its total crude oil for these 23 years? We would be importing more oil. We would be importing it to the west coast and to the east coast in foreign ships, not U.S. flag vessels.
I am just amazed at the general condemnation that somehow it is a 6-
month supply of oil. That is the falsehood. Everybody in this body knows it. They can figure it out. The estimate by USGS on the oil that is anticipated to be in ANWR is somewhere between 5.6 billion and 16 billion barrels. Why don't they know? They do not know because only Congress can authorize exploration in the area.
If there is no oil, which sometimes does occur, nothing is going to happen. But to say it is a 6-month supply is terribly misleading because it is totally inaccurate.
If you cut off all the oil imports and if you didn't produce a drop in any other State, then it might last 6 months. But remember that Prudhoe Bay was 10 billion barrels of oil. It has produced over 10 billion barrels of oil. ANWR is 5.6 billion to 16 billion. It is one-
half the median of 10 billion barrels; it would be as big as Prudhoe Bay.
I am getting kind of tired of hearing these slanted stories relative to facts. They say it is going to be 10 years. That is absolutely ridiculous. We have the pipeline built. We need about 70 miles of pipeline over to ANWR. It is a matter of putting up the leases and doing the updating on the permits.
Incidentally, that whole area has had a full environmental impact statement by the Interior Department.
This is more effort to simply throw cold water on reality.
I am sorry my friend from Minnesota is not here because he and I don't go out of this Chamber or leave Washington, DC, on hot air. Somebody has to put the fuel in that airplane or that train or that car. That is absolutely all there is to it. I wish we had other means of energy to move us around, but coal, gas, nuclear, and wind do not do it. We have to have oil. The whole world operates on oil. This is important, particularly at a time when we are seeing such grave circumstances associated with activities that affect the entire world occurring in Israel and the Mideast.
So what are the arguments? One, I guess, is that it is a 6-month supply. I think we have addressed that adequately for the time being. The 10-years is out of the question. The Porcupine caribou herd is another. Clearly, most of the Gwich'ins who follow the Porcupine caribou herd are in Canada. There are about 800 in Alaska. Canadians are leasing their lands. They are developing their own corporation because they are looking for jobs.
When we talk about caribou, since we are on the subject of these migratory animals, let's look at the experience we have had in Prudhoe Bay. That particular herd was 3,000 to 4,000 animals 15 years ago. It is 26,000 animals today.
Every single issue on the other side can be countered, but that does not stop the opponents. The opponents simply want to kill this for the time being until it can come up again. But eventually it will pass because it is the right thing to do.
I think it is fair to say that some do not want to see our President prevail on a few issues. Trade promotion is one. Energy is another. We are talking about stimulus in this country. You name a better stimulus than ANWR, creating 250,000 jobs, creating, if you will, revenue for the Federal Government of about $2.5 to $3 billion from lease sales, not costing the taxpayer one cent.
What about other jobs? Nineteen double-hull tankers will have to be built. Some will be built on the east coast, the west coast, and the gulf, because under the law the old tankers have to be retired. These are double-bottom tankers. It is estimated it would pump about $4 billion into the U.S. economy. It would take 17 years to build those ships. That is what we are talking about when we talk about jobs.
What about our national security? The more we become indebted to the Mideast oil-producing nations, the more leverage they have on us. It seems to me it is quite clear that there are a few people on this issue who clearly fail to recognize what is best for America.
Our President has asked, time and time again, for an energy bill. The veterans: The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, the Vietnam Vets, the Catholic War Veterans; organized labor: The Seafarers International, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; the maritime labor unions; the operating engineers, the plumbers and pipefitters, the carpenters and joiners; the Hispanic community: The Latin American Management Association, the Latino Coalition, the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce; the 60-plus Seniors Coalition, the United Seniors Association; Jewish organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, and the Zionist Organization of America--I think we have a couple more that came in today that represent the opinions of America's Jewish lobby also there is the National Black Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth.
There are a few people whose voices ought to be heard who have expressed their opinion that it is in the national interest, the national security interest, to open up this area. I further refer to Americans for a Safe Israel. This is a letter dated November 13:
Americans for a Safe Israel is strongly in support of your amendment which would permit drilling for oil in the ANWR area of Alaska. . . .
We at Americans for a Safe Israel would be pleased if you would include our organization among American Jewish organizations in support of your amendment regarding oil exploration in the ANWR.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Americans for a Safe Israel,
New York, NY, November 30, 2001.Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,U.S. Senate Hart Building,Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: Americans for a Safe Israel is a national organization with chapters throughout the country and a growing membership including members living in other countries. AFSI was founded in 1971, dedicated to the premise that a strong Israel is essential to Western interests in the Middle East.
We have many Middle East experts on our committees, who have authored texts on Israel and the Arab states and have appeared in television interviews, forums, and on newspaper op-ed pages. U.S. senators and representatives have been guest speakers at AFSI annual conferences.
Americans for a Safe Israel is strongly in support of your amendment which would permit drilling for oil in the ANWR area of Alaska. Your eloquence in addressing the Senate yesterday and this morning should have convinced the undecided that the arguments offered by senators in the opposition, or by environmental activists, are not based on the facts or realities in the ANWR and of our need for energy independence.
We at Americans for a Safe Israel would be pleased if you would include our organization among American Jewish organizations in support of your amendment regarding oil exploration in the ANWR.
Sincerely,
Herbert Zweibon,
Chairman.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, you have the Teamsters. I will read you a press release put out by the Teamsters today.
(Washington, D.C.) The International Brotherhood of Teamsters today renewed their call for a fair vote on a comprehensive energy plan before the U.S. Senate. The action came as the Senate was preparing to consider a series of procedural votes related to petroleum exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Minority Leader Trent Lott has proposed an amendment to railroad retirement legislation that would allow for ANWR exploration while also banning human cloning for six months. . . .
``Teamster members in the railroad industry have worked hard for a secure retirement,'' said James P. Hoffa, Teamsters General President. ``It is unfortunate that Senator Daschle is jeopardizing [Senator Daschle is jeopardizing] this important legislation by denying the ANWR exploration a separate floor vote. These two pieces of legislation deserve to be passed on their own merits.''
I certainly agree with him.
He further states:
``Exploring in the ANWR is clearly the right thing to do,'' Hoffa said. ``It will reduce our reliance on foreign oil while creating thousands of jobs for working families. A vote on the energy package must not be delayed any longer.''. . .
Unfortunately, the Democratic Senate leadership has attempted to thwart the will of the majority by refusing to allow an energy vote to come to the Senate floor.
That is the factual reality. The Democratic leadership has precluded us from having an up-or-down vote on an energy bill. So here we are today on a Monday afternoon arguing the merits of a very complex procedural situation involving railroad retirement as the underlying bill with amendments for cloning and amendments for H.R. 4, the House energy bill.
For reasons unknown to me, the majority leader has indicated he is willing to take up a bill when we come back after the recess, but he will not tell us that he is willing to conclude it. If he were willing to, say, take it up when we come back, with the assurance that we would have an up-or-down vote, and preclude any situation where they would simply pull the bill down and not bring it up again, I would find that acceptable. If he would give us a time certain, such as when we come back to take up the bill, and then perhaps have a final vote on it prior to the February recess--we have suggested that to him, but so far he has declined.
I encourage, again, the majority leader to consider the merits associated with getting up an energy bill because the more time that goes by the more difficult it is to simply ignore the issue.
We have seen the national farmer support groups--and I just read here: The National Energy Security Act low-income fuel programs and a provision for oil exploration and production of a tiny portion of the Coastal Plain in the Arctic Wildlife--the Senate needs to pass this act this year.
There is more and more heat coming on this issue as the general public recognizes the reality associated with developing this particular area where there is a likelihood of a major oil discovery.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I see the senior Senator from Alaska is in the Chamber. He may wish to be recognized at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Connecticut was in this Chamber addressing the Senate concerning the days that President Eisenhower and his administration considered lands in Alaska. That is of particular importance to me because I was there. I was the assistant to Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton. I was in the meetings with President Eisenhower. And I am happy to tell the Senate what the President did and what the Secretary of the Interior did. Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman has been misinformed.
The Eisenhower administration withdrew 9 million acres of the northwest corner of Alaska as the Arctic Wildlife Range. It was the Arctic wildlife range, not a refuge.
At that time the order specifically provided that oil and gas exploration and development would be permitted under stipulations to protect the flora, fauna, fish, and wildlife of that portion of Alaska. Subsequent administrations did not issue such stipulations so no oil and gas exploration took place. However, as time went by and I then became a Member of the Senate, we dealt with the settlement of the Alaska Native land claims. Those claims were settled by an act of Congress in 1971. In that basic law, which we called the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, there was a provision in section 17(d)(2) that required the study of national interest lands in Alaska.
That was one of the requirements that was demanded of us, that we agree to the study of which lands should be set aside in the national interest because the statehood act of Alaska gave the right to the State of Alaska to select 103.5 million acres of public land, vacant, unreserved and unappropriated land. And the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act gave the Native people of Alaska the right to take 40 million acres of Alaska land, plus some additional lands that would add up to about 45 million acres.
The Congress, at the time the Native Claims Settlement Act was passed, was worried that such selections might impede the national interest. And there was a review undertaken of what lands should be set aside in the national interest.
We worked for several years to try and get the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act passed. In the Congress ending in 1978, we did achieve the passage in both the House and Senate of a bill to satisfy the requirements for the 1971 Act, that section 17(d)(2), as I mentioned.
Unfortunately, at the last minute of that Congress, just prior to adjournment, my former colleague Senator Gravel objected to the approval of the conference committee on that bill and required the reading of the legislation which was an extremely long bill. We had already agreed to an adjournment resolution and, in effect, that killed the bill for that period of time.
In 1979, when we returned, we started working again on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. And by the time we finished it, the bill had been changed substantially from what it was in 1978. One thing did remain the same: The Arctic National Wildlife Range was changed from a range to a national wildlife refuge, and it was more than doubled in size. Of the original 9 million acres, that land was to be part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But a section authored by Senators Henry Jackson of Washington and Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts provided a compromise to meet the Alaska objection about the denial of the right to continue to explore the Arctic Plain.
That is what we call section 1002 of the 1980 act. It provided for the right to proceed to explore that 1.5 million acres to determine if it had the potential for oil and gas and to have an environmental impact statement presented to the Congress and approved by the President and by the Secretary of Interior.
That has happened. As a matter of fact, there has been more than one environmental impact statement. Presidents Reagan and Bush asked for the right to proceed for the exploration. That was denied by the Congress at that time.
When President Clinton was in office, the Congress approved proceeding with the leasing of oil and gas on the 1.5 million acres, and President Clinton twice vetoed the bill. So where we are today is we are still trying to fulfill a commitment that was made to Alaska by two Democratic Senators in 1980 that we would have the opportunity to continue to explore for and develop the vast potential of the Arctic Plain. We have been trying since that time, of course, to obtain approval of it.
The area we have now, the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, originally contained just 9 million up here in the corner. As I said, that was opened to oil and gas leasing. It included the coastal plain. It was part of the original Arctic wildlife range. What we are trying to do now is to once again fulfill the commitment made to us in section 1002 of the 1980 act that the analysis and exploratory activities may proceed.
Unfortunately, this has become the icon of the radical environmental movement in the United States. People insist on coming to the floor and trying to tell the American people that this area was never intended to be explored. The commitment was made to us, and it was made to me personally, specifically, by Senator Paul Tsongas and Senator Henry Jackson that it would remain open. That was one of the reasons we did not object to the passage of the bill in 1980. The two of us who were here in 1978 were still here in 1980 when this bill passed. Senator Gravel and I agreed, because of the representations made to us by the two managers of the bill, that this land would remain open and could be explored. And if oil and gas was discovered, it could be produced from that area.
It is probably the largest source of oil area in the United States. It is a sedimentary basin. It is the largest, probably, that we will ever see in the North American continent. Yet it goes unproduced because of the opposition of radical environmentalists who try to tell the American public something that is not true. This land has not been closed. It has never been closed to oil and gas exploration. But in order to proceed with the development in terms of production activity, it takes approval of an act of Congress signed by the President.
We have been after that now for 21 years--even more if you go back to 1971. It is 30 years we have been telling the American public: This is probably the greatest place on the North American continent to produce oil to meet our needs.
I, for one, hope we will have an opportunity to debate it and vote on the merits of this bill during this Congress. I congratulate my friend and colleague Senator Murkowski for all he is doing to bring it to the attention of the American people.
When the time comes later on this afternoon, I will talk about some of the opportunities we have to meet our needs. Too many people consider oil solely as gasoline. Less than half of a barrel of oil becomes gasoline. As a matter of fact, the barrel of oil goes into everyday products. Fifty-six percent of a barrel of oil that comes out of the ground becomes other products besides gasoline: home fuel, jet fuel, petrochemicals, asphalt, kerosene, lubricants, maritime fuel, and other products. Everything from Frisbees to panty hose comes from oil. Yet people talk about how to have alternative supplies of energy.
Where do you get the 56 plus percent of the barrel of oil that goes into products other than gasoline? You just can't get it. Look at this, items made from oil: toothpaste, footballs, ink, lifejackets, soft contacts, fertilizer, compact discs. As a matter of fact, there is no question that one of the most versatile products known to man is petroleum. A barrel of oil is a barrel of gold for our economy. We need to talk more about what it means to open up the Arctic wildlife area, the 1002 area, which was guaranteed to be made available to us for oil and gas development.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If nobody yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for the opponents of the Lott amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 21 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for such time as I may use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will speak to some of the comments we just heard. I must say, I am a little bit disturbed that the quality the debate is already, to some degree, seeming to move into sort of a personal characterization about who is representing whom. I heard one Senator from Alaska suggest that all this is is an effort to smokescreen, that it is a membership drive for environmentalists. My very good friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, suggested that radical environmentalists are driving this issue. Well, I don't know who he is talking about. I haven't talked to any radical environmentalists. In fact, the fundamentals of my decision on this issue are not based on environmental choices; they are based on energy choices, based on economics, and they are based on the realities of the choices we face in this country about oil.
I completely agree with the Senator from Alaska that some wonderful products that all of us use every day are oil-based. Indeed, we are going to continue to make those products. There is nobody here who is talking about eliminating one of those products--not one of them. Those products don't spit out emissions from the exhaust on the back of a vehicle that is contributing to the problem of global warming. Those products are used and manufactured--many of them--in very different ways. No one that I have heard in this debate is talking about not drilling for oil or not using oil. This country faces--I don't know--a 40- to 50-year transition in order to begin to be able to really shift away from our dependency on oil.
It happens that that 50-year curve also coincides very precisely with the problems we face on global warming. Ask any of the leading scientists in the United States--not Senators, not people who go out and do fundraising and represent interests in the U.S. Senate--what they can tell you about what we face in terms of potential catastrophic--and I underscore that they use the word ``catastrophic''--climatic shifts about 50 years from now. That is precisely the amount of time we face with respect to the potential for weaning ourselves from the dependency on oil.
Now, I hope we can stay away from these characterizations. I don't represent any group. I represent the State of Massachusetts. I represent my oath of office as a Senator to uphold the Constitution and look out for the welfare of our country. I believe the welfare of our country is better served when we begin to create a true, independent energy policy--a policy that brings us to independence from reliance on oil. That is going to take a long time. I have no illusions about that.
There is no windmill that is going to substitute for that tomorrow. There is no renewable or biomass that is going to substitute tomorrow. It will take a period of transition and work. It is important that we deal with the realities of this debate. The Senator from Alaska is absolutely correct when he says that a 6-month supply is not the appropriate way to talk about this issue because that represents if the United States were cut off from all fuel. He is absolutely correct. A 6-month supply--if you indeed have the amounts of oil some people suggest might be there--is only a viable number if there were no other suppliers from other places in the rest of the world. None of us are presuming, given our relationship with Great Britain, Venezuela, Mexico, and other countries in the world, including our increasingly renewed relationship with Russia, and our own production--nobody is really looking at that as the potential.
This is a phony debate. The reason I say that is that I heard my colleagues trying to scare Americans into believing that they ought to somehow start digging in the Arctic because we are at war in Afghanistan, we have a threat in the Middle East, national security is at stake, and the military is at stake.
We have heard veterans groups recited here. I am a cofounder of the Vietnam Veterans of America. I am a proud veteran. I am proud of my service. I know enough about the military and the military needs, the 300,000 or so barrels a day the military might consume under these circumstances, to recognize that the 8 million barrels we produce in the United States is going to satisfy the needs in an emergency of the military.
Moreover, Mr. President, let me suggest to you why this is such an artificial debate. There are more than 7,000 leases for oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico open for exploration and for development today. As I stand here on the floor of the Senate tonight, 7,000 leases are open for exploration, more than 80 percent covering 32 million acres, and are not producing oil. They are not drilling for oil. They could be. Anybody who comes to the Senate floor and says that today you have to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because the United States is threatened is not telling the truth to the American people because the fact is that there are countless millions--32 million, precisely, not countless. It is not just because they don't have oil that they are not drilling. They are not drilling because they are being mapped for future production or they are simply sitting idle by choice because the economics drive that choice.
Individual companies that own leases have decided, for business reasons and most likely because of the oil price or infrastructure limitations, they are not going to develop those leases now. They are waiting for the price of oil to maximize profits. In fact, some companies--Exxon, to be precise--are letting their leases in the United States sit idle while they invest in Saudi Arabia and other countries.
So don't let any Member of the U.S. Senate be cowed or stampeded into believing that this has anything to do with the current national security issue of Afghanistan or the Middle East. We have oil we could be drilling today.
Moreover, 95 percent of the Alaska oil shelf is open for drilling--95 percent of it.
Here is an article from The Energy Report, July 30, 2001:
Responding to increased industry interests in North Slope gas, the State of Alaska plans to open up new acreage in the North Slope foothills. . . .
Governor Tony Knowles recently announced that beginning next May the State would include additional acreage in the 7 million acre Foothills region in area-wide oil and gas lease sales in its 2002-2006 leasing schedule. . . .
Moreover:
The Bureau of Land Management expects to hold a second oil and gas lease sale in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in June 2002. The agency will reoffer approximately 3 million acres made available, but not leased in the prior NPR-A sale in May 1999.
There it is. So there is no rush here. In effect, what we have in the ground in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, should the United States ever be pushed to a corner and our back is up against the wall, we are at war or there is some circumstance where our allies have forsaken us, and we haven't been smart enough as a government to make the choices that we have today to move to alternatives and renewables and other forms of power, then we will have the most God-given ready natural Petroleum Strategic Reserve. Rather than buying it and putting it in the ground, it is in the ground, and we leave it there for that moment when the United States might need it.
I believe the reason I am here opposing this--not at the behest of any group--is because I have for 30 years been watching the United States procrastinate. I remember as a young law student sitting in line at gas stations studying my torts and contracts while I was waiting an hour and a half to get gas. That was 1973. We were told: We have to be energy independent; we have to work at this.
Then we imported 30 percent of our oil from other countries. Today we are over 50 percent. The fact is, there is one simple reality that our friends from Alaska avoid: 25 percent of the oil reserves of the world are in other countries. We use 25 percent. The United States of America uses 25 percent of the oil reserves, but we only have 3 percent. Any schoolkid can figure out that if you only have 3 percent of something and you are using 25 percent, you either stop using it or you are going to have to get it from those other people. That is exactly what we are stuck in today.
No matter what figure we give the Senator from Alaska--if I take the top figure of the Department of the Interior--and say it is $16 billion and you amortize that out, 1 million barrels a day, 365 days a year, so it is 1 billion barrels every 3 years or so----
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield for a question?
Mr. KERRY. I want to finish what I am saying. We have very little time. We are going to have weeks to debate this when we come back in January, and I look forward to that debate to a great extent because that is when we are going to help America view the possibility of alternatives.
For instance, in Europe, they have diesel engines. Their cars get 60 miles to the gallon with a diesel engine. It is exactly as powerful as many of our cars. The cars can go as fast. If you want to break the speed limit with your 60-miles-per-gallon diesel, you can break the speed limit, but you get 60 miles doing it.
We are going backwards. We used to get 27 miles per gallon. Now we are down to 22. We are doing worse than we were doing in 1973 when we said we would have to be energy independent.
Mr. President, there is a long litany, all the way through the years, that world consumption of oil is about 70 million barrels a day. We produce 8 million barrels. The amount that we produce, even if we included additional oil from Alaska, will never be sufficient to impact the price of oil in the world market. So when my colleagues come to the Chamber and suggest we are going to somehow change the price or increase the supply on a long-term basis, that is not true, and I will document it.
From 1972 to 1975, America produced more than 70 percent of our oil domestically. Oil prices climbed more than 400 percent when we produced it domestically. From 1979 through 1981, America produced more than 50 percent of its oil, and oil prices more than doubled. That spike was set off by a number of events: OPEC, the Iranian revolution, the Iranian hostage crisis, Middle Eastern production cuts, and the onset of the Iran-Iraq war.
Through all of 1991, we produced 50 percent of our oil domestically. Oil prices doubled. In 1999, we produced slightly less than 50 percent of our oil. Oil prices tripled from the historic flows.
The reverse has also been true. We have had low oil prices, and we have had high imports. When oil reached a near record low in the late 1990s, guess what. Imports climbed over 50 percent.
The fact is that U.S. production will not lower and stabilize the global price. Look at Great Britain. Great Britain is surplus in oil. Great Britain produces enough oil to export. They do not affect the global price as a consequence of even being independent. There is no British market for oil. Prices rise and fall in Britain with the world price, and we all know that for reasons of history, allegiance, economics, and national security, they are enmeshed in global affairs as we are.
I will quote Lee Raymond, chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobile:
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.
The conservative Cato Institute has said:
Even if all the oil we consumed in this country came from Texas and Alaska, every drop of it, assume we didn't import any oil from the Persian Gulf, prices would be just as high today, and the main reason is that domestic prices will rise to the world prices.
That is the Cato Institute. Do not tell us in this Chamber this is going to affect independence. It is not. We cannot produce enough oil. Do not tell us it is going to affect world price because there is not an economist who suggests it will. Then the question is: So why are we doing this?
There is a better way than this alternative. We need to wean ourselves from oil, and we need to engage in a program--H.R. 4 is an extraordinary giveaway program that does not do any of the things we need to do in energy policy to create a truly independent nation.
I suggest this debate is going to be long, it is going to be interesting, and we are going to provide this country with a set of alternatives. I am all for helping the folks in Alaska. I admire the way both Senators are fighting for the people of their State, but we can find a better way to help the people in Alaska. There is an awful lot of oil. We should be building the natural gas pipeline tomorrow. If we want to help the people of Alaska, that is the best way we can create jobs.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am glad to have been here when the Senator from Massachusetts was speaking. He is a friend. We have visited one another and have shared the privilege of having wives who are great friends.
I say to my friend from Massachusetts, I hope if I ever stand on the floor of the Senate and make a pledge on behalf of the people of Alaska to do something for Massachusetts that my successors will honor that. I stood here and debated with the predecessor of the Senator from Massachusetts for a long period of time in 1977, 1978, and 1979. We finally ended up in Senator Jackson's hideaway for 3 days around the clock, and I mean around the clock.
We reached a conclusion, and that conclusion was an offer from the Senator from Massachusetts to me. It was: We will set aside 1.5 million acres up there so you can go ahead with that oil and gas development, but let us create this system of withdrawals in this State. Almost 100 million acres in Alaska were set aside at that time.
For 9 years in this Chamber we debated what was a national interest of Alaska's land. Nine years, Mr. President, and the Senator from Massachusetts, God rest his soul, Paul Tsongas, said in Senator Jackson's office: We can work this out. If you are willing to be reasonable, we will be reasonable. We will guarantee you that 1.5 million acres will be explored. Look at his record. In fact, when the time comes to get down to debating whether or not this bill will pass, I hope it will be considered by the Senate as the Alaska pipeline was, as that 1980 act was: without filibuster. The pipeline was made available to people in the United States by one vote. Vice President Agnew broke the tie and gave us the Alaska pipeline, which has brought 13 billion barrels of oil to the United States.
I hear the estimates that we have nothing more than a 6-month supply in ANWR. That is ridiculous. At the time we were debating the Alaska pipeline, they told us there would be approximately 1 billion barrels of oil, if you are successful. We have already produced 13 billion barrels of oil, and we have a 15- to 20-year supply at the current rate, but that is not keeping the pipeline full.
People say: Why do you want to go ahead with ANWR now? During the Persian Gulf war, there were 2.1 million barrels a day of oil sent to the south 48 from the Alaska pipeline. Today, it is 1.2. The pipeline is no longer full. The cost of Alaskan oil is going up because it is not full. We know there is oil to be produced.
This 6-month supply theory is a very interesting thing. I will stand on the other side of my chart so my friend can see it perhaps. This is a chart that shows what happens with increased production. If we have no new production in Alaska, this is the flow of oil out to 2050. If we produce in the Central part of Alaska, this is the flow of additional oil. If we go through the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska--which is another area set aside, by the way, by President Harding after the Teapot Dome. It has never really been produced. Again, my friend does not like to be called a radical environmentalist. I think that is better than extreme environmentalist. In any event, this oil is not available to us because we cannot get in there to drill, either.
The important thing is, this is ANWR. If ANWR comes in, this is the increase in oil over this period between now and 2050 to the United States. Look at it. It is more than what is there now. We believe there is more oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge area which is 1.5 million acres that was set aside for oil and gas production than we have in all of Alaska's remaining lands now.
This area is the most important area for our energy sufficiency. I am not talking about energy independence. It may be we could not get to be energy independent, but think about this: This area is basically not available to us. Access to the major pieces of the Outer Continental Shelf is not available to us. The entire NPRA is not available to us, and ANWR is not available to us. Look what would happen in the next 20 years if we did have it available to us. We would get up to the point where we are producing a great deal more, more than twice as much oil as we have available today from domestic production. Now that is energy sufficiency and it is energy independence in the sense of being able to exist through a period of crisis with our own production.
My friend wants to ask a question. I am glad to answer any question he has.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, that very large increase of blue is based on the best assumption of what might be findable, am I correct?
Mr. STEVENS. No, that is not correct. That is the medium assumption.
Mr. KERRY. How many billions of barrels does that assume would be present?
Mr. STEVENS. That is 10.3 billion barrels.
Again, I point out to my friend from Massachusetts, the estimate for the existing area of Prudhoe Bay was 1 billion barrels. We have produced 13 billion so far.
The mean estimate is 10.3. We believe it is a lot bigger than that. If oil is there, it is big. It is the biggest sedimentary basin on the North American continent if it contains oil. We do not know yet, but we will not know until we drill.
The real point is, though, we can have a decided improvement in our ability to rely upon our own sources in the event of a crisis if we really go in and open up this area and it is producible. Remember, it takes an act of Congress to open up. It is the only place in the United States where the Mineral Leasing Act was qualified by a provision of Congress, and I agreed to that. That was a Tsongas provision. It will take an act of Congress, passed by both Houses and signed by the President, to do this oil and gas exploration.
The area remains subject to oil and gas exploration until it has been explored. This will not become part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge until it is explored. It is reserved for oil and gas exploration, in effect, until we get permission to go in to see if it is there or not.
Mr. INOUYE. Will my good friend yield for a question?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
Mr. INOUYE. When we speak of ANWR, what are we talking about?
Mr. STEVENS. We are talking about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mr. INOUYE. How large is that acreage?
Mr. STEVENS. It is 19 million acres. It was 9 million acres before 1980 as the Arctic Wildlife Range.
Mr. INOUYE. Of that, how much is proposed to be set aside?
Mr. STEVENS. This entire 19 million acre area is the size of South Carolina. Of that, 1.5 million acres was set aside as the Coastal Plain for oil and gas exploration. Of that 1.5 million acres area, we need just 2,000 acres to reach the vast amounts of oil and gas.
Mr. INOUYE. It is a small part of it?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Hawaii asked a very good question. At the time that Prudhoe Bay was developed, we did not have today's advanced technologies, such as horizontal drilling. We can access the oil and gas from the entire 1.5 million acre area of this sedimentary basin from just 2,000 acres.
Mr. INOUYE. I recall during the pipeline debate many of my colleagues and friends were suggesting the pipeline would decimate the caribou flock. I gather now that it has increased tenfold.
Mr. STEVENS. In parts of the State, it has increased nearly tenfold. In the area of the pipeline, this 800-mile pipeline, without question every one of the herds has increased by at least a magnitude of 4, some as much as 9 times. In fact, two of the herds now stay nearer to production areas because the food and the improvement of their habitat has been so great.
By the way, because of acts of the oil industry, they went to our university and developed new strains of grasses and new approaches to vegetation, and those caribou herds do not migrate at all. The one that comes to the plain of the Arctic area into this 1002 area each year, it comes in from Canada. It migrates up. It spends 6 weeks up in the summertime. The Senator's question is very pertinent.
Mr. INOUYE. The pipeline has not decimated the caribou flock?
Mr. STEVENS. It has not, and this will not either because we do not do oil and gas exploration in the summertime when they are there. We have committed to be certain there would be no interference with the caribou migration.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his questions.
What I think is important to do is to make sure the people understand that because of the decline in the through-put of that pipeline, the Trans-Alaskan oil pipeline, we now are sending less than half of the amount it was designed to carry on an average day to the Lower 48. It was filled because of the discovery of the great Prudhoe Bay oilfield, and there was a second field discovered at Kuparuk. This area has produced, as I said, 13 billion barrels of oil so far. One of the sadnesses I have, as I have already indicated, is that we had a commitment. That 1980 act would not have become law if the Senators from Alaska had opposed it. The whole Congress knew that. It had almost become law in 1978 and my colleague objected, and we went back through the process. The process came to fruition at the end of 1980. The act passed before the election. President Carter did not sign this bill before the election. After the election but before leaving office, after President Reagan had been elected in the fall of 1980, President Carter signed it. In fact, he invited me to come to the White House at the time. President Carter signed that bill, and he and others now raise objection to the provisions of the law he signed into law.
It is the feeling that one Congress cannot bind another, but the statement of a Senator representing a State and a party ought to be binding upon the Senate. We had exchange after exchange over the 1980 Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, and I thought those commitments were worth believing. I believed it when the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Tsongas, said he would stand by this concept of a promise that this area would be explored and developed if it proved to have oil and gas. I trusted my late and dear friend Senator Henry Scoop Jackson of Washington when he called us up to his office and said we have to listen to Senator Tsongas because he is making an offer that is real; it was real.
Twenty years later, I am still in the Senate arguing for the Senate to observe the commitments that were made to our State and to the people of the United States.
While I have this chart, I hope everyone will understand--the Senator from Hawaii asked about it--this is the State of Alaska, obviously. Alaska is one-fifth the land mass of the United States, 20 percent. It extends from one end of the Lower 48 to the other. It is almost as wide as the United States, and from Barrow down to Ketchikan it is like going from Duluth to New Orleans. This is an enormous area.
People ask: Why don't they go out here to NPRA and develop leases? Because there is no transportation system. It takes a monstrous development of oil to support an 800-mile pipeline and run it a full 365 days a year. Currently, we are running half full.
The wilderness area is the area colored in brown, the 1002 area on the Coastal Plain is in green. It was guaranteed to Alaska to be available for oil and gas exploration. With new technology, we propose to use just 2,000 acres. It is impossible to believe there is such a battle over that. I point out, in this we call the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain, set aside for oil and gas exploration, is a native village, the village of Kaktovik. Adjacent is the Sourdough Oil Field. And 100 miles west are the two largest deposits of oil and gas on the North American Continent today and they are both producing.
Why do we do this? What is the national interest now? If ANWR is open, 735,000 jobs will be created throughout the United States to get parts, people, produce--everything that is necessary to develop an area and support its development that far away from what we call the contiguous 48 States.
This is a forecast made and relied upon by the great labor unions of this country that I am proud to say are supporting our position that this area ought to be opened to oil and gas development. The Senator from Massachusetts said we should build a gas pipeline. Yes, we should. However, a gas pipeline is more affected by price than the oil pipeline. Gas in our country fluctuates in great variation. Just 18 months ago we saw rolling blackouts in California and record high natural gas prices. Now that is not going on because of a different price structure and infrastructure for delivering the resource and varying market conditions.
What we do not have is another enormous areas in the United States to explore and develop with the same potential of the Arctic Plain.
Despite everything I have said, I will oppose the cloture vote for this amendment. I believe the underlying bill, the Railroad Retirement Act, is essential to a great portion of the families of our working people who have retired. I deplore the fact we have to have a cloture vote to get this bill acted upon. Having our own bill up there will mean, because of the passage of time, now we have to the end of this Congress. When we first started this we thought we had time to get H.R. 4 considered and the Railroad Retirement Act passed, too. I don't see that happening now. I intend to vote against cloture, although our provision is in it, even though the ANWR provision is in H.R. 4. We ought to get down to the business that is very meaningful to a great number of families. There are some families in Alaska affected by railroad retirement issues, but only a few.
The families of former railroad workers should be assured we are considerate of their needs and understand their position. I hope that bill will pass, go to conference, and be approved after a conference. I understand there are a couple of provisions to which the administration has objected. I hope they can be resolved. I don't think they affect the basic provision of the retirement system.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I comment relative to the statement by the senior Senator from the State of Alaska. Our President has asked specifically that the Democratic leadership pass three bills: Trade promotion, energy, and the economic stimulus bill. It seems to me the leadership has been reluctant to do so. The justification for that is beyond me other than, clearly, it is fair to say the objections, to a large degree, are centered around the energy bill.
I will continue my dialog relative to what we are doing. It is Monday afternoon and we have an underlying railroad retirement bill with two amendments: One is cloning and the other is H.R. 4, the energy bill. To make sure anyone that perhaps has misunderstood the statements on the other side relative to the tax portion, in our bill there is no provision for tax increases. That $33 billion in the House bill is not in this version of H.R. 4. The inconsistency is because the Democratic leader has refused to negotiate on the requests of our President: Trade promotion, energy, and the economic stimulus. Instead, he is moving ahead, now with the railroad retirement and the farm bill next.
Is it not rather interesting that we cannot at this time get an energy bill up when, clearly, we have a crisis in the Middle East? It is interesting to reflect on the comments associated with the leadership in the Senate. It is clear that the Senator is blocking a vote precisely for one reason. He knows Alaskans have the votes to pass out an energy bill in this body if given an opportunity. Has he given this opportunity to us? Clearly, he has not. He has indicated in several statements: My comment is we will raise the issue, debate it, and have a good opportunity to consider energy legislation prior to the Founders Day break in mid-February.
If the leader would conclude by suggesting we would resolve it by then, in other words, by Founders' Day, or at some specific time, then I think we could have a fair vote. All we are asking is for a fair vote on the issue.
He indicated further: There will be votes on ANWR, but I'm not at this point ready to commit to an up-or-down vote.
He is saying we will have to overcome a cloture vote. We cannot have a simple majority vote. The inconsistency goes further. Senator Stevens references several items; I go back to a personal item, the attitude of the people living in the North Slope of Alaska. Those who have gone up there and taken advantage of the invitation have come back with the sincere appreciation and understanding that these people are Americans, they have a right to life, they have a right to look towards a future based on reasonable economic development prospects, health benefits, and so forth.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record upon completion of my statement a letter from the president of the Arctic Slope Corporation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. MURKOWSKI. He indicates:
Dear Representative: The decision to allow oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife has significant impacts on our effort to make a success of the very directive of Congress in ANCSA. Our self determination is at stake. It is fundamentally unfair, dishonest, and potentially unlawful to deny us the right to see our land and the small area of the Coastal Plain opened to exploration of development. Congress made a deal with our people and we have tried hard to play by the rules.
Now it is denying us that progress.
Here is a picture of a building in Kaktovik, including the community hall. There are two people, the boy on the bicycle and the older man on the snow machine, which represents the significance of the picture. We have some other pictures here showing some of the kids. I do this so we can get a feel for the real, warm, personal association of what this means to the people of Kaktovik.
The letter further states:
By locking up ANWR, the Inupiat people are asked to become museum pieces, not a dynamic and living culture. We are asked to suffer the burdens of locking up our lands forever as if we were in a zoo or on display for the rich tourists that can afford to travel to our remote part of Alaska. This is not acceptable.
I think that is an appropriate comment.
Further:
The Inupiat of the North Slope have lived and subsisted across the Arctic for thousands of years. Learning not only to survive, but to develop a rich culture, in the harsh environment of the Arctic has instilled a deep respect and appreciation in the Inupiat Eskimo people for that environment and the animals that inhabit our area. We don't need outside ``environmentalists'' telling what to do with our homelands. Our own development standards and the controls imposed by our locally controlled borough government will ensure that these lands are protected. It is our people that live in ANWR, particularly the Coastal Plain of ANWR. . . .
He concludes this letter by saying:
I beseech you to search in your heart to do what is right for my people. Do not let the misguided intent of a few do harm to the Inupiat Eskimo. Do not defeat the very Act you passed a generation ago. Support the passage of legislation to open the Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil and gas development. I and my people--the real people--thank you for consideration of our request.
That is the reference in the reflection from the people who are affected by this action.
We have little notes here, many of them supporting opening the ANWR development because it gives them opportunities. These are opportunities that your children and my children perhaps take for granted. What are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to be isolated? They have a landmass of about 95,000 acres I can show you on this chart. There it is, right in the middle of the 1002 area, right in the middle of the 1.9 million acres of land we are talking about. But 95,000 is private land, owned by these Native people. Until Congress gives them the right to initiate exploration, they cannot even drill for natural gas on their own lands to heat their own homes. That is an absolute injustice. None of the speakers talks about the people of the area. They ignore the people. They do not want to acknowledge that there is any existence of a footprint of man up there. That is a rather blatant and I think inappropriate way to simply dismiss this matter.
The assumption is this area has never been touched. It has been touched. There is the village of Kaktovik, the people who live there, their homes, their generators. They have a dependence on a way of life. By putting a fence around them and not allowing the appropriate opening, we clearly are disenfranchising them as some other class of American citizens. I find that terribly offensive.
I think each Member should reflect a little bit on the realities. I have to acknowledge my expertise based on having visited the area, having met with the people, and having an understanding. But my opponents can just generalize and brush it off, that the concerns of the people of the area do not amount to anything.
Furthermore, as we look at some of the statements that have been made about the coastal area--I am going to put up a chart. The statement has been made that 95 percent of the coastal area is open for leasing. That is absolutely wrong. That is absolutely wrong. Mr. President, 14 percent of Alaska's arctic coastal lands are open for oil and gas exploration. There it is. It covers the entire breadth from the Canadian boundary, past Point Barrow, around to Point Wales.
The fact is, only 14 percent of Alaska's arctic coastal lands are open to oil and gas exploration. These are the lands that are owned by the State of Alaska between the Colville and Canning Rivers. If the ANWR Coastal Plain were open to exploration, the total would only rise to 25 percent.
The breakdown on that is that the ANWR Coastal Plain is 11 percent, ANWR is about 5, the National Petroleum Reserve is 52 percent. That area is not open. If you look at the area, you can see numerous lakes. There is legitimate environmental concern associated with activity in those areas, and that is why leases have not been granted by the Department of the Interior.
As we look through the general discussion on this issue, all we want is an up-or-down vote on the issue of an energy bill. That energy bill should contain ANWR.
The position we have been put in is rather extraordinary. As a Senator, I resent it. The authority has been taken away from the committee of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It has been taken over by the Democratic leadership; they say they will introduce a bill very soon, perhaps this week. But that bill has not had a hearing, it has not gone through the Energy Committee.
We have had 14 years or more of ANWR in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. We have had over 50 witnesses. We have had over 14 hearings. We are ready to go with a bill that has already passed the House of Representatives. That is H.R. 4. That is what is before us now.
As a consequence, what the Democratic leadership has decided to do is simply take away the authorization from the committee process and direct it simply from the office of the majority leader to the floor of the Senate.
I do not know whether that is the kind of debate he is talking about at a later date, but I am not going to sit by and lose opportunities to object to unanimous consent request until we get some kind of agreement from the Democratic leadership that we can have an up-or-down vote on an energy bill in a time sequence that reflects the ability to complete it.
The idea of coming in when we come back in January and starting a debate on the issue, and then pulling it down, is just not good enough.
I think the support associated with this issue has gained a broad enough base that we could simply demand it, and the political downside to it, from those who are in opposition to it, I think is significant. What you are going to have to do is vote on what is right for America. If we do not develop this area in Alaska, we are going to bring in oil to California, Washington, Oregon--the west coast of the United States. Do you know how it is going to come in? It is going to come in foreign vessels, not come down in U.S. flagged vessels, as Alaska oil must come down under the Jones Act. It is not going to result in 19 new double-
hulled tankers being built to bring Alaska's oil down to the west coast. It is going to come down in foreign tankers with foreign crews. So we are looking at a stimulus package. We are looking at jobs.
To suggest it is a 6-month supply, Senator Kerry already acknowledged that was not a fair association. To suggest it is a 10-year process is totally unrealistic. We could have oil flowing within 18 to 24 months because we only have to put in a lateral pipeline. To suggest the Porcupine caribou herd is going to be impoverished is absolutely without foundation, based on our experience with the central arctic herd that has grown from 3,000 to 26,000.
Take them down the line. The emotional arguments used are based on environmental groups that use this issue for membership and dollars, and it has been great for them. The American public is starting to wake up now and say: Hey, wait a minute, why can't we open there? Don't we need the jobs? Don't we have a recession in jobs? This is going to create 240,000 jobs. We need to have jobs in this country. We need to build ships in our shipyards.
I grant we are not going to eliminate our dependence on imported oil, but we can reduce it. Isn't that good for America? Isn't that good for the balance of payments? These are positive. That is why the unions are for it. The environmentalists are saying, no, you can't do it, but they give different reasons, none of which holds water or oil. They simply are a flash in the pan.
When you start looking at the groups that support this, it is a broad group. It is the veterans. It is the unions. It is the senior citizens. It goes right down the line, on and on. These people are saying: Let's wake up to a reality. The reality is we need this action in the United States, and we need it now, and we should have it.
As we look at the general list of those who support it, it is growing all the time. We have all the major Jewish organizations.
Let's reflect on their individual interests. The Jewish organizations look at the future of Israel, as they should. They look at it very meaningfully because of what has happened in that part of the world. They know what funds terrorism. It is oil. The wealth of OPEC and the wealth in areas associated with that part of the world is accumulated primarily by one thing. That is the accumulation of oil. What funds bin Laden? Where did his association with Saudi Arabia and his background with those things come from? Those things came, very frankly, from the association with oil.
As we look at the current situation with Saddam Hussein, how ironic. How inconsistent can we be? I have said this in this Chamber time and time again. I know the Chair recalls it. We are buying a million barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein. We are using his oil to go back and take out his targets. He uses our cash for an obvious purpose: To take care of his Republican Guard, and perhaps develop missile capability and aim it at Israel.
What has happened? This should bear on the conscience of every Member. Within the last 2 weeks, we have lost two American sailors. They were doing their job. They were boarding a ship coming out of one of the ports in Iraq that was smuggling illegal oil. It was apprehended by the U.S. Navy. The ship sank, and two of our sailors drowned.
Talk about connections and interactions. I will not make a direct link. But the pathetic part of this is that should never have happened. We should not be buying oil from Saddam Hussein. The U.N. in their oversight of that particular process should not be allowing blatantly illegal exports of oil out of Iraq. It is happening every day. It has cost us two lives.
When we get down to voting on these measures, we have to look at what is right for the environment, right down the line: Can we open it safely? What is the footprint? It is 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. It was said the other day Robert Redford has an 11,000-acre farm in Utah, as a matter of comparison. Can we protect the caribou? Yes. Do we need the oil? Yes. Do we need the jobs? Yes. Does it affect the economy of this country? Yes. Does it affect our balance of payments? It is a plus-plus-plus. Almost everybody can figure it out, except some people who are wedded to the dictate of America's environmental community.
The most pathetic part of it is, with one exception, the speakers today have never chosen to visit the area. They have never chosen to talk to the people who live in the area. They have never thought to consider the personal relationship of these people and their own hopes and aspirations.
As we look at the coming situation, I can honestly say I fear for the west coast of the United States because if they don't get their oil from Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, and Utah are going to get their oil directly from overseas in foreign flagged vessels built in foreign yards with foreign crews. It seems to me the most secure source you can get it from is a little north of the west coast. That happens to be in my State of Alaska.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen and one-half minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
I think it is important for Members to recognize just what my position is in this rather awkward situation with railroad retirement and the energy bill.
I regret that the majority leader has placed us in the situation we are now in, but we are here. I want to explain why I will oppose cloture on both the Lott amendment and the substitute amendment the majority leader offered. As a consequence, I will be voting against cloture.
I will oppose cloture on the Lott amendment for two reasons.
First, I have always said our national energy security demands a full, open, and honest debate. We have been precluded from having a full debate on this issue. The time may come when cloture needs to be invoked on the legislature on a particular amendment, but not at the outset. Cloture on the Lott amendment would limit that full, open, and honest debate. I don't believe it should be limited.
Second, the authorization text of H.R. 4 was filed--the House-passed energy measure. This is not the text that I believe the Senate should enact without change.
There are a variety of amendments that I believe the Senate should consider. One is an extension of Price-Anderson. That will be foreclosed as nongermane if cloture is invoked.
As you may know, I am more than a little frustrated that we have been sitting around here when we could have been debating an energy bill from the Energy Committee. But that opportunity was taken away by the Democratic leader.
I am going to vote against cloture on the Daschle substitute because he has offered no other alternative apparently for the remainder of this year. If cloture is invoked, the Lott amendment falls as nongermane.
Once again, the majority leader has frustrated the Senate and the American people in dealing with the energy policy. When I say
``frustrated,'' I mean not allowing it to come up--taking it away from the authority of the Energy Committee, which has jurisdiction.
Until we get this matter resolved, there is the only way that the Senate can debate energy policy--by defeating both cloture motions. If both cloture motions are defeated, where will we be? H.R. 10, the House pension reform bill, will be before the Senate, and the Daschle substitute on railroad retirement will remain intact. Pending will be the Lott amendment that adds energy legislation to the Daschle substitute, and that amendment will be open to a second-degree amendment.
I fully support dealing with railroad retirement. In fact, I am going to vote for it.
If the majority leader would stop this charade with our national security and provide an opportunity for the Senate to work its will on energy and proceed to conference with the House on H.R. 4, I would be happy to take my charts out of the back office. As it is, the closest we seem to get to the consideration of an energy bill is perhaps a lump of coal in the majority leader's stocking.
The only way for the Senate at this time to have a full, open, and honest debate on energy policy is to defeat both cloture motions and begin that debate, which we are ready to do.
I apologize again for the manner in which this has come up, but the majority leader has given us no alternative. Apparently he intends to proceed that way. We will have to use whatever parliamentary precedents are available to get this bill up, or get a commitment from the majority letter that he will allow an energy bill to be taken up at a certain time and conclude it by a certain time. I will not agree to simply take it up and not giving us some kind of inclusive date on it.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit No. 1
Arctic Slope Regional Corp.,
Anchorage, AK, July 30, 2001.
Dear Representative: I am writing this letter on behalf of my people--the indigenous residents of the North Slope of Alaska. Thirty years ago the U.S. Congress put us on a path to modern corporate development with the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and establishment of our regional corporation--the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. Congress essentially told us (we rally had no choice) to take some cash and land, in exchange for our aboriginal land claims, and ``have a go at'' making those assets into an economic enterprise. Despite the fact that most of the potentially valuable lands for resource development were off limits to our initial selection of lands, we made the best of it and put together a land portfolio with resource and habitat values. We now find ourselves with our fate once again in the hands of Congress.
The decision to allow oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife has significant impacts on our effort to make a success of the very directive of Congress in ANCSA. Our self determination is at stake. It is fundamentally unfair, dishonest and potentially unlawful to deny us the right to see our land and the small area of the Coastal Plain opened to exploration and development. Congress made a deal with my people and we have tried to play by the rules--now it is denying us that promise. The corporate model imposed by ANCSA was an intentional decision by Congress to avoid the path pursued with Native American tribes in the lower 48 states and their history of broken treaties. Now, however, we find ourselves in a situation of having the commitments made in the potential benefits of ANCSA for the Inupiat people being ``broken''.
We have tried to keep our side of the bargain, even if we did not have a choice and gave up many, many times the value of what was received in return. The Inupiat people have taken the values of the western culture and corporate America and the traditional values of our people to blend them into a culture that will survive far into the future. Our subsistence lifestyles and ties to the land and sea continue while we also participate in a cash economy. We have made strides in educating our people and providing basic services that simply did not exist in any form in our communities when ANCSA was passed. ANCSA was a great social experiment that has had many successes. But it now appears that Congress does not want to keep its side of the deal; it wants to defeat the very experiment it mandated must be followed. By locking up ANWR, the Inupiat people are asked to become museum pieces, not a dynamic and living culture. We are asked to suffer the burdens of locking up our lands forever as if we were in a zoo or on display for the rich tourists that can afford to travel to our remote part of Alaska. This is not acceptable. But, maybe we shouldn't be surprised.
The Inupiat people that live in ANWR, the residents of the village of Kaktovik, are no stranger to the heavy hand of the federal government. It was not that many years ago that the U.S. military came to the village of Kaktovik and bulldozed homes of people without the smallest amount of human dignity or respect for the people living there. There was no explanation, no compensation and no apology to the families that were literally thrown out of their homes--and it happened more than once. Anecdotal comments after the fact indicated that the officials involved considered the Eskimo people's homes ``just shacks'' anyway and the people themselves hardly due treatment as human beings. These are well documented but seldom told stories. This history hardly gives the Inupiat people faith that they can expect fair treatment at the hands of the federal government. To have the purposes of ANCSA so boldly frustrated only makes this worse.
The Inupiat of the North Slope have lived and subsisted across the Arctic for thousands of years. Learning not only to survive, but to develop a rich culture, in the harsh environment of the Arctic has instilled a deep respect and appreciation in the Inupiat Eskimo people for that environment and the animals that inhabit our area. We don't need outside ``environmentalists'' telling what to do with our homelands. Our own development standards and the controls imposed by our locally controlled borough government will ensure that these lands are protected. It is our people that live in ANWR, particularly the Coastal Plain of ANWR, because we are traditionally a marine coastal and nomadic people. We are fully capable of balancing development and environmental protection for the long term value of the entire nation. For us it's a matter of life or death; we do not eat without the animals. Our life and our culture are tied to the land, the sea and the animals. Even with the changes brought about by ANCSA and a developing cash economy, our people maintain these ties. But, do not ask us to give up all chances for realizing the promises of ANCSA and bear the burden of supposedly preserving an area for the entire nation. That is patently unfair and misguided because it is not threatened by the small amount of development that would actually occur for oil and gas activities. Furthermore, none of this development would take place in the areas of ANWR that are classified already as wilderness where so many of the scenic vistas are located that have been used to cloud the issue about development on the more northern Coastal Plain.
Much has been said about who are the ``real'' people of ANWR that are at risk by potential oil and gas development. It is the residents of Kaktovik that live there. While the Gwichin to the south also use the caribou that migrate through the ANWR area, they are not Inupiat which is literally translated as the ``real people.'' Years ago we might have feared development, but we have learned that development and subsistence can coexist. The Gwichin chose to opt out of the provisions of ANCSA, that was their choice. Their position, which we still feel is fundamentally flawed, should not be allowed to frustrate the commitments of ANCSA that we did choose to accept.
I beseech you to search in your heart to do what is right for my people. Do not let the misguided intent of a few do harm to the Inupiat Eskimo. Do not defeat the very Act you passed a generation ago. Support the passage of legislation to open the Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil and gas development. I and my people--the real people--thank you for consideration of our request. Quanukpuk.
Sincerely,
Jacob Adams,
President,
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today's vote on the Lott amendment will be the beginning of the debate on two very important issues. One of them has to do with an energy bill, which, as we all know, our majority leader has scheduled for debate in less than 60 days.
This particular version contains drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as my colleague has discussed for many days now.
My view is that if there are other ways to have an energy policy that leaves the wildlife refuge intact, I am for it. I will point out ways to avoid drilling in such a refuge.
The second issue that is combined with it deals with stem cell research.
In our vote, we will answer the question: Should we in this single vote not only say yes to drilling in ANWR but also say yes to derailing stem cell research by stopping it dead in its tracks, really, without looking at it?
I don't see any problem in banning human cloning. I think we would get 100 to 0 on that one. It is a very easy thing that we can do. But why would we want to derail stem cell research?
I am certainly willing to vote no on the Lott amendment that contains both of these issues: Drilling in the Alaska wildlife refuge and stopping stem cell research.
The Senator from Alaska is quite open on the point of drilling and makes the case very well.
He brings up a number of issues. First of all, he criticizes people who are for retaining the wildlife refuge if they have not actually gone to see it. Let me say that many of us have and some of us have tried. I sent one of my top environmental aides there and got a full report on it.
The bottom line is, the Senator from Alaska and others have not seen every single national park, have not been into the Sierras in my State, into every little town. Yet they weigh in on logging debates. So that is a bogus issue.
The issue is, How do we have better energy independence? I think I speak with some authority--a little bit, in any event--because in our State of California, we were hit with a horrific shortage of electricity, and it was even predicted we would have brownouts and blackouts and there would be rioting in the streets. The bottom line is, because the people in my State understood this, they began to be energy efficient, making very small changes in their daily lives that never even impacted on their comfort, really. We have saved about 11 percent in our energy use. We avoided all of these problems.
My friend talks about the creation of jobs. This is an important issue. I know some of the unions are backing drilling because of that. Let me say to my friend, the fact is, if you produce energy-efficient appliances, you create many jobs. If you produce energy-efficient automobiles--hybrid vehicles; so many other ideas; electric cars--you will produce jobs. Alternative energy in itself produces jobs, whether it is solar power, wind power, whether it is biomass--all of these create jobs, and not only good jobs, but the whole green technology is a technology that we can export around the world as the whole world looks for ways not to choke on gasoline fumes. We can do it. We can do it and meet our energy needs and become independent of imported oil.
I find it so interesting when my friends from Alaska talk because they fought me when I wanted to make sure there was a ban on exporting Alaskan oil. We used to have that in place because I made the point, as many of my colleagues did at the time, that we needed that oil to stay home in America because we wanted energy independence. But both my friends fought to allow us to export Alaskan oil. I find it very interesting.
So we have so many ways we can win this energy battle. One way is to raise the fuel economy standards of automobiles. Just take SUVs. If the SUVs met the same standard as a regular sedan, in 7 years we would save as much oil as there is in ANWR.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me repeat that. If we simply did one thing, and that is, got the SUVs to have the same fuel economy as a sedan--and, by the way, that is quite doable--we would, in 7 years, have ``produced'' enough oil to equal that of ANWR by saving it. By the way, that happens exponentially. In the next 7 years, there is another ANWR. Every 7 years you save another ANWR.
So to stand in this Chamber and say the only way to become energy independent is by drilling in a refuge I just do not think stands the light of scrutiny.
I am looking forward so much to having the debate on the energy bill, as Senator Daschle has promised. He is very interested in having that debate, as well, but he does not want to have that debate up against the December timeframe when we have so much to do relative to economic stimulus, when we are looking at bioterrorism. We must get the vaccines in place for smallpox. There is so much we need to deal with, including the appropriations conference reports. So I think Senator Daschle has done the right thing by setting aside a time, within 60 days, when we can have this debate.
The President, using his Executive powers, overturned a rule that President Clinton put in place that said that air-conditioners should become more efficient. That particular rule was even supported by many of the people in the industry itself. By canceling that, we are again being beholden to Middle East oil. So there are so many things I want to talk about when that energy bill comes before us.
In California, I drive a hybrid vehicle. If people look at you and say that sounds very strange, well, you fill it up with gas, just the same way you do any other car, and the computer within the car knows when it is more efficient to be running on gas or running on electricity. When you step on the brake, it charges the battery. So we are getting about 50 miles to the gallon.
As someone who has been sharply critical of the increase in oil prices, finally they have come down. I am convinced regulatory agencies will not do a thing about high prices. We had them cold on what I believe was very close to price fixing. We had them cold on harassing independent station owners who wanted to lower prices. We had them cold on that. But we could not move the regulatory agencies.
One way you fight back is you drive a car that gets 50 miles to the gallon. You can do it. You can buy it pretty cheaply. I encourage people to do that. So I do look forward to taking up the energy bill.
On the issue, again, of stem cell research, this is one that is so important. I have seen a list of the groups that oppose Senator Brownback's 6-month moratorium. I think it is very important because sometimes you learn a lot from supporters and opponents.
Let me read to you the list of opponents to the 6-month moratorium on stem cell research: Alliance for Aging Research, Alpha One Foundation, American Academy of Optometry, American Association of Cancer Research, American College of Medical Genetics, American Infertility Association, American Liver Foundation, American Physiological Society, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, American Society for Cell Biology, American Society of Hematology, Association of American Medical Colleges. All of these, and more, oppose, very strongly, a 6-month moratorium on stem cell research.
Here are some others: Association of Professors of Medicine, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups, Cure for Lymphoma, Genetic Alliance, Harvard University, Hope for ALS, the International Foundation for Anticancer Drug Discovery--and it goes on--the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International--those folks came to visit many of us in our offices--the Kidney Cancer Foundation, Medical College of Wisconsin, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project, National Patient Advocate Foundation, Research America, Resolve, Society for Women's Health Research, and it goes on.
So the bottom line is, we have a chance today, by voting against the Lott amendment, to send two very important messages: Yes, we want an energy policy, but we want it to be well thought out. There can be differences on whether the Alaska Wildlife Refuge is pristine, whether it is worth saving. I am willing to get into that debate. That is a fair debate. But wouldn't it be an interesting debate to find out what our other options are and then to decide if it is truly worth the gamble? People I know and respect say it isn't worth the gamble. And on stem cell research, clearly, it is time to continue this research while we ban human cloning. The Brownback amendment does not do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am aware that the other side has until 4:45. I ask unanimous consent to speak as though we had reached 4:45, which starts the time running for our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
