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.
“THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AND ENERGY POLICY” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S9788-S9792 on Oct. 4, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AND ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, like millions of Americans last night, I watched the Presidential debate with a great deal of interest. It was one of the more memorable debates in recent history for a number of reasons.
First, of course, as a Republican, I was very proud of the job that Governor Bush did. It is probably fair to say that he was matched against a very experienced debater, Vice President Gore, but I think the Governor held his own in many respects. From the broad issues of prescription drugs to Medicare, education to energy, Governor Bush very clearly laid out what the choice is for the American people in this election.
Governor Bush engaged the issues. They were not dodged. The Governor was clear in laying out the goals and objectives he would propose in his administration, if he were elected President.
I was particularly pleased with the debate because it focused on energy, which is one of the crucial issues facing the American people today and has probably received the least publicity. Obviously, in the areas of education, prescription drugs, health, and Social Security, we are all trying to build a better structure, a long lasting structure, and also address what to do with the surplus.
But the issue on energy is quite clear. We have a crisis in this country. It has developed over a period of the last 7\1/2\ years. It has not been addressed by the current administration. I am very pleased that we have, in the energy area, a distinct separation on the issues between the candidates, and the American public can clearly understand and, as a consequence, view the merits of each proposal.
The Vice President said, in regard to a question on energy policy, and I quote:
I am for doing something on the supply side and the consumption side.
I have no doubt that that is the case, but I point out in the past 8 years we haven't had any indication of specifically what the Vice President would do on these issues. As a consequence, I think he is headed in the wrong direction, and the American public are becoming more and more aware.
What we have seen happen is the emergence of an issue that in many respects our friends on the other side of the aisle hope will go away or not become a major issue prior to the election. With the increasing rise in crude oil--10 days ago it was up to an all-time high in 10 years of $37; it dropped down with the SPR release; now it is coming up again--the American public is becoming aware of how crucial not our dependence on imported oil necessarily is but the general concern that we have sacrificed our traditional areas of dependence on energy, whether it be coal, nuclear, or hydro, for a policy that has been fostered by this administration that directs everything towards utilization of natural gas.
As a consequence, we have seen the price of natural gas rise from
$2.16 per thousand cubic feet 10 months ago to better than $5.00 in the last quotes that have come out within the last couple weeks. We have seen a tremendous increase in the dependence on natural gas at the expense of all our other energy sources.
This has occurred over an 8-year period of time. During that time, Clinton-Gore have to stand accountable for what they have done. On the supply side, the Vice President has done something. It is a situation that the supplies have decreased 18 percent and on the consumption side, consumption has increased 14 percent. In spite of our efforts for conservation, in spite of our efforts in alternative energy, we have a decreased supply and an increased consumption.
I was astonished when the Vice President said in his response to a question on energy policy, and again I quote:
We need to get serious about this energy crisis in the Congress and in the White House.
Where has he been for the last 7\1/2\ years? While I don't agree with him in terms of Congress not being serious, I was glad to see they finally admitted it was not an issue taken seriously in the White House for the past 7\1/2\ years. That was certainly the implication.
We have had statements from our Secretary of Energy relative to the fact that the administration was caught napping with regard to energy prices, as we have seen the price of oil go from $10 a barrel a year ago to $37 within the last few weeks.
Now, I think, while it didn't come up in the debate last night specifically, there was a generalization to blame big oil. Well, who is big oil, Mr. President? Who sets the price of oil? We had a hearing before the Energy and Natural Resource Committee, which I chair. It was rather interesting because the Secretary of Energy did acknowledge that it is OPEC, the supplier, setting the price of oil. We are 58-percent dependent on OPEC. Who is OPEC? The Mideast countries that have the excess capacity, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and moving down to Central America is Venezuela, and then we also have Mexico. They have the supply; we have the appetite. They set the price. So to blame big oil for profiteering, or to make the implication of profiteering, is totally unrealistic and a bit irresponsible, in my opinion. There is no mention, of course, in general terms of the assumption that perhaps our oil industry was simply benevolent when they were selling at $10 a barrel a little more than a year ago. They are not so benevolent now because, obviously, they don't set the price. It is a supply and demand issue.
When the Vice President said we needed to get serious about the energy crisis, I think it is apparent that there has been a lack of attention during this in the administration, because Congress has acted. Specifically, Congress passed legislation granting deep water royalty relief. Congress passed legislation to help our domestic oil and gas industry through tax incentives, which they vetoed. Congress passed legislation that would handle the country's nuclear waste, which they vetoed. Congress passed legislation to open up the Coastal Plain of ANWR--that sliver in the Arctic--to responsible development, which they vetoed. That was 6 years ago. Had they passed that legislation, we would know what is there. We could have another strategic petroleum reserve, and we don't know that. We would be a long way into the development stages if indeed the oil were there. I venture to say, Mr. President, if we made a commitment to proceed with the Arctic oil reserve, you would see a dramatic drop in the price of oil.
One of the other interesting things the Vice President brought up was the implication that we hadn't done anything, or not enough, with renewables. In the last 5 years under the Republican Congress, expenditures for renewables have been $1.5 billion in new spending and
$4.5 billion in various tax incentives. So Congress anteed up about
$4.6 billion total for that purpose. The difficulty is that we simply don't have the technology to replace our oil dependence with coal, natural gas, and hydrogen.
Let's not be fooled. It is not just around the corner. The Vice President said last night he is a big clean coal fan. Well, what does that really mean? You would assume he would support the development of coal-fired generating plants in this country. There hasn't been a new one built in years. The administration's budget over the last 5 years has proposed to rescind or defer more than $1.4 billion in clean coal technology. Those are the facts.
How can you be all things to all people? Well, Vice President Gore implies he is pretty good at that. Let's talk a little bit about the facts because part of the issue that came up on energy was the disposition of the Coastal Plain in Alaska, the State I represent. I know something about it. I have been to the coastal plain many, many times. I think once again we saw the Vice President in trouble with the facts. This is what he said regarding the Arctic Coastal Plain, and I quote:
I think that is the wrong choice. It would only give us a few months' worth of oil, and oil would not start flowing for years into the future.
Well, the facts are, according to the Department of Energy--the Clinton- Gore Department of Energy--this area could be the largest field ever discovered in North America--possibly 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. If that high estimate of oil is found, it could produce over 20 percent of our current domestic production levels for the next 20 years. If the high estimate is found, it would be larger than Prudhoe Bay, which has been doing just that--producing 20 to 25 percent of our oil for almost the last 25 years.
I am not surprised that Vice President Gore has a problem with the facts on this issue. One need only read his official position on why he wants to ``protect the Arctic Coastal Plain'' to see that he is terribly misinformed. He says, ``The wildlife refuge's Coastal Plain--
where drilling would occur--is home to polar bears, grizzlies and black bear, Dall sheep, wolves and moose.''
I know something about this area. I assure you there are no black bears and no Dall sheep in the Coastal Plain. Dall sheep are a mountainous species, and perhaps some Members in this body would have you believe otherwise, but there are no mountains in the Coastal Plains. It is very flat for miles and miles and miles.
What did Governor Bush say? Well, Governor Bush said it is better to produce energy here at home, where we can do it in an environmentally sound manner than to continue relying on imported sources of energy. I particularly agree that it is better that we explore at home, using our technology and environmental sensitivity, and do it right, rather than going over to the rain forests in Colombia, where there are no environmental constraints and they would ship it into this country on foreign tankers, which have the exposure to an accident off our shores by companies that don't have the deep pockets associated with the tragic accident that occurred in my State. Nevertheless, it seems as if this administration would continue to rely on the likes of Saddam Hussein for our energy security. That is about where we are.
I am going to conclude my presentation this morning on one segment of our energy policy that needs clarification. It is an issue that the environmental community has perpetrated on our American citizens; that is, that there is something extraordinarily unique, and there is something that, by its implication, suggests that we cannot explore and, if we find hydrocarbons, develop them safely. That is the argument over ANWR--or, as we refer to it, the Coastal Plain--a small portion of the area which is proposed to be opened for exploration and can only be done by the Congress of the United States.
Before I go into it, I think the public should be aware of another fact that has come up. You will recall the other day the Vice President recommended to the President that we release crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, about 30 million barrels. That 30 million barrels was estimated to be a supply of heating oil, after it was refined, that would equal about a 3-day supply. I think it was about 3 or 4 million barrels of heating oil we would get out of that release.
I think it is also interesting to recognize that in the wintertime we consume about 4 million barrels of distillate--including heating oil a day. What I can't understand is the reality that we are exporting heating oil--heating oil that ordinarily you would assume would be going into inventories to meet the anticipated winter demand for heating oil in the Northeast Corridor. More than 117,000 barrels per day of distillate, as I understand it, are being shipped over to Europe and other places.
If the President has the power--which he certainly and evidently has taken--to remove oil from the SPR, why would he not prohibit the export of any heating oil refined from that oil? It is diesel that is going overseas currently. It doesn't make sense. I will have more information specifically, but they seem to have overlooked this in their euphoria to get the word out that indeed they are doing something positive about the shortage in the Northeast Corridor for heating oil, and the fact we are allowing a refined product to go to Europe is unconscionable and certainly goes against the argument that we needed to release oil from SPR.
Let me get into my presentation this morning because I want to try to communicate what this issue is about--ANWR, what are the facts and what is the fix. Hopefully, we can address that this morning since this issue has been brought up in the Presidential debates and clearly is attracting the attention of the American people, many of whom simply don't have an appreciation because they have never been there.
My State of Alaska is a pretty big piece of real estate. It is one-
fifth the size of the lower United States. If you overlay Alaska over the entire lower United States, it will range from Canada to Mexico and Florida to California over to the Aleutian Islands 1,000 miles out to the west.
This little portion up here of our State is called the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--perhaps inaccurately named because not all of it is a refuge nor all of it a wildlife area. There is an area that was carved out by Congress in 1980. In their wisdom, Congress took this area, which is 19 million acres--the size of the State of South Carolina--and said let's make a wilderness out of part of it and a wildlife refuge out of the other part. They took 8.5 million acres and made a wilderness in perpetuity; it is not going to be changed. They made another 9 million acres into what we call a refuge. But they left this area called the Coastal Plain, or the 1002 area, out of any permanent land designation until Congress made its determination as to its status.
During this time, there were certain activities with regard to oil and gas exploration, and it was suggested that there might be a significant reserve in this general area.
As you know, Prudhoe Bay is here--not too far away. That is where we have been producing about 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country. We built an 800-mile pipeline down to Valdez where the oil flows and moves down to the west coast of the United States. This infrastructure is already there. There was a construction project of about $7.5 billion to $8 billion, the largest construction project ever built in North America. It was designed to handle a little better than 2 million barrels of crude oil a day. Currently it is handling a little over 1 million barrels a day. So there is an unused capacity in existence there for over 1 million barrels a day. It would require no further adjustment of any kind.
The idea here is, should we allow exploration in this area and put it up for Federal leases? If we do, can we do it safely?
Of course, the proposal in Governor Bush's energy presentation is to take the revenue of some $3 billion anticipated from Federal leases as well as the federal royalty share and put that back into conservation issues, renewable energy technologies, home heating, and weatherization programs; in other words, take the revenue and try to do something positive for people to lower costs associated with high energy costs.
That is a significant step that suggests we can use the revenue which the private sector will pay and do something very positive with it, and address, if you will, environmental issues that need regeneration in other parts of the country with this revenue. The whole question, of course, is the status of this area and whether Congress is going to see fit to open it up.
I am going to go through the arguments because I think they really mandate an understanding so that there can be an appreciation of the merits of this. The first argument that is used in the fictional sense is the assumption that 95 percent of this area is already open to oil development.
Here is the area we are talking about. Only a part of the 1,500 mile Arctic Coastline is left open for possible development. Only 14 percent of the whole 1,500-mile Coastal Plain in Alaska is open to oil exploration today--not 95 percent but 14 percent.
Here is the area. This is closed. This area is open. Some of this happens to be State lands. And, except for a small part of the coastline, the coastline of the national petroleum reserve is closed clear over to Point Hope. To suggest that 95 percent of the area is already open is totally inaccurate.
I will certainly look forward to a spirited debate on this subject if somebody wants to take me up on it, including members of the environmental groups.
We also have 8 million acres of ANWR, as I have indicated, in a permanent wilderness. Another 9.5 million acres is classified as refuge; that is, 95 percent of the entire range is closed to exploration and oil development. It is closed.
Using modern technology--there is the point I want to highlight--the indications are that we would need only 2,000 acres out of the 19 million acres to develop the proposed oil fields that are believed to exist in the ANWR Coastal Plain. That is a pretty small footprint when you consider this ANWR area is about the size of the State of South Carolina. We are talking about a 2,000-acre footprint, if given the opportunity. That is about one-tenth of 1 percent of the 1.5 million acres, the 1002 area, and only 1 and one-hundredth percent of the entire 19-million acre ANWR area.
These are the misconceptions that have been forced on the American people relative to the significance of what development could take place, how small the footprint is, and how large overall the area is, and little attention has been given to the infrastructure that is already there.
I also remind people that this is not an untouched area. There is a distant early warning radar site there. There is a Native village of Kaktovik right in the middle of it where nearly 300 Eskimo people make their living and pursue a subsistence lifestyle. It is interesting to note that about 70 percent of the people in the village support opening the area because they want to have an opportunity for an alternative standard of living and lifestyle: Should they choose to foster just subsistence, or should they pursue opportunities for jobs.
Another fiction is that opening up the Coastal Plain would destroy the biological part of the wildlife refuge. That really sounds good. But let's look at it for a minute.
The Coastal Plain can be opened to development without harm to the wildlife and the environment. Even the Eskimo inhabitants of Kaktovik who depend on subsistence hunting and fishing to eke out their living in the far north are convinced that oil development can be done safely, because of the safeguards, without harm to their land and the wildlife on which they depend for their heritage.
Under legislation I have proposed, No drilling or development activities would be allowed during the caribou calving season. Limits would be placed on exploration, development, and related activities to avoid impacts on fish and wildlife. Initial exploration efforts would be limited to a time between November and May--the Arctic winter--to guarantee that there would be no impact from exploration, pipelines, or roads on the caribou.
Let's look at some descriptive charts that give you an idea about the success of developing this area from what we have learned in Prudhoe Bay.
Here is the Prudhoe Bay area. These are not mannequins, these are real caribou. They are wandering around, and nobody is disturbing them. You cannot take a gun. There is no shooting allowed. There is no taking of game in the entire oil fields. These animals are very adjustable as long as they are not harassed. Clearly they are not harassed.
There is a picture of the caribou herd that happens to be going through Prudhoe Bay area.
The same thing is true with regard to other wildlife. This is the pipeline going to Prudhoe Bay. You can see the Arctic tundra over here. It is a pretty time. It is a wintertime picture.
There are three bears here. It is kind of comical because the bears are walking on the pipeline. Why? Because it is easier to walk on the pipeline than to walk in the snow. They are as smart as the average bears around here. In any case, it is a little warmer too. To suggest that somehow these animals are going to be fenced out because of some activity just isn't supported by any burden of proof.
We are trying to give some factual, real-life issues associated with development in the Arctic and what steps we take to protect the environment and ensure we are not going to have difficulties associated with the wildlife.
I also want to show you a little effort by our Canadian friends on this side when they begin to initiate an aggressive oil and gas exploration program in the Arctic.
This is the boundary between Canada and Alaska. This is the Northwest Territory. We see various villages. The dots represent oil wells that have been drilled for exploration purposes. Here is the village of Old Crow, just on the Canadian side of the Alaska-Canadian border.
My point is to show the extent of drilling on the Canadian side in the search of oil and gas. Unfortunately, they didn't find any oil and gas. This is also the route of the porcupine caribou herd. They move through the range and traverse the area. Incidentally, they cross a highway, the Dempster Highway. The Canadian Government, when they found there was no oil, decided to make it a park. As a consequence, it is a park today; that is fine. But to suggest that somehow this activity would have some effect on the migration pattern certainly proves it didn't have much of an effect, and the highway and the caribou traversing it did not have an effect on the herds. In the proposals we have for development in Alaska, the technology today is very different.
This photograph gives an idea of the development of an oil well in Alaska today. There are no roads, no gravel. This is an ice road. That is the technology used. They build up the ice and use it as a road. This is a well. You can see the Arctic Ocean. It is a pretty tough area. It has its own uniqueness, its own beauty, but is a very hostile environment.
When exploration activity is completed, this is the picture we have during the short summer. It is the same area. There is no despoiling of the tundra. This represents the technology that is available today.
The Coastal Plain has been declared America's last wilderness. It is not wilderness. However, an awful lot of our State is wilderness. We have 56 million acres of wilderness. The point is we protect the wilderness. We can protect these areas.
In our State less than 1 percent of the entire State, 365 million acres, is in private ownership and available for development. We have 192 million acres of parks, preserves, conservation system units. As I have said, there are 56 million acres of wilderness, 61 percent of all American wilderness. How much is enough? I am not here to debate. Wilderness in Alaska already covers an area equal to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, and Maryland.
Further in the Coastal Plain lies this village of Eskimo people. This picture demonstrates what it is like to take a walk on the North Slope in the wintertime. There are a couple of kids in the village walking down the street. It is blowing snow. Aren't these kids entitled to a different lifestyle, should they wish? The answer clearly is yes. When they say there has been nothing in this area, they are misleading. It is inaccurate. This is the wilderness, this is the refuge, this is what Congress is debating, and this is where the oil is likely to occur in the footprint of 2,000 acres.
Some suggest it is only a 90-day, or a 200-day supply of oil. Prudhoe Bay was estimated to produce 9 billion barrels. It has produced over 12 billion barrels today. It is still producing over a million barrels a day. When we look at potential production, we are looking at the potential of 16 billion barrels. When we talk about a 200-day supply, we assume there will not be any oil produced from any other source. It is a fictional argument.
I have talked about the caribou, but I want to show again the significance of this with regard to Prudhoe Bay. This picture is a different herd than exists in the ANWR area. This is the central arctic herd. There is no indication that an environmentally responsible exploration will harm the porcupine caribou which, I might add, is 129,000 now. As a matter of fact, we have about three times as many caribou in our State as we have people--not that that is anything significant, but it is a fact. We have had 26 years in Prudhoe Bay of protecting these animals. The central herd has grown from 3,000 animals in 1978 to 19,700 today. That is a fact.
These arguments suggesting somehow we will decimate the wildlife simply is not based on any accurate information. It is an emotional argument. This is one of the travesties that has been taking place--
exploiting the American public to suggest we cannot open this area safely. Why has the environmental community pursued this? It generates membership. It generates dollars, gives them a cause, and it is so far away people cannot see for themselves. I can't say how many ``experts'' in this body have opinions but have never been there. Their material is written by the Wilderness Society. It is written by the Sierra Club.
Caribou will flourish in ANWR as they have throughout Alaska. In these areas, no hunting will be allowed by anyone other than a Native.
We have heard a good deal from the Gwich'in group, the group of Natives on the Canadian and the Alaskan side. The suggestion is this will destroy their culture. Nothing will prevent the caribou herd from passing close to the Gwich'in villages. That is where they yearly hunt, when they come through. They will continue to have the availability of the caribou for their subsistence. Strict controls are planned to prevent disruption of the caribou herds during the summer calving. The caribou calve in the northern area, but they calve, depending on weather schedules, snowfall, bugs, and predators--sometimes they calve on the Canadian side; sometimes they calve on the Alaskan side. The point is, the Gwich'in group that is dependent will be protected as a consequence of ensuring that there is no activity on the Arctic Slope during the time of the migration. That can be simply asserted by regulations, and we have agreed to do that.
It is interesting to note that the Gwich'in group, 15 years ago, issued a request for a proposal to lease their own land, about 1.7 million acres for oil development. Maybe the oil companies should have bought. Unfortunately, there wasn't any oil. As a consequence, the leases were not taken up. Now the Gwich'ins are entitled to change their mind, and that is what they have done.
The truth is, they are funded by the Wilderness Society. They are funded by the Sierra Club. We have tried time and time again to encourage some of the Gwich'ins to go from their traditional area and go to Point Barrow and see what the Eskimos think of resource development associated with oil and gas.
I recall one of my friends took a group up. He is an Eskimo from Barrow. He said he used to go to school to keep warm. But before he did, he had to go to the beach to pick up driftwood that flowed down the river--no trees, but driftwood, to keep warm. He says: We have an alternative lifestyle now. We have a choice. We can take a job. We have educational opportunities.
They are able to provide a full 4-year college scholarship to any member of their community who wants to go. They can do that because they have revenues associated with their Barrow's taxing base on the oil pipeline. So it has brought about an alternative in lifestyle and a choice that people previously did not have.
These people are entitled to the same things to which you and I are entitled, if they so choose. So when you look at these kids, look at whether or not they want to continue to rely on the subsistence economy, following game, or whether they want an opportunity to have a college education and come back, maybe, as a doctor or nurse or whatever. They are given this opportunity through activities associated with creating the tax base of their communities. Should they not be heard as well?
I was amused at the inconsistencies associated with the environmental community. The Audubon Society currently holds leases in the Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Preserve in Louisiana. They hold oil leases. They generate revenue. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is an inconsistency they do not care to acknowledge or admit. If it is OK for the Audubon Society to have revenues from oil in a preserve, the Paul J. Rainey Wildlife Preserve in Louisiana, why shouldn't the Natives of my State have the same opportunity for their own land? It seems to me there is certainly justification.
There is another myth: Canada has protected their wildlife; we should do the same. We went through that. The Canadians finally created a national park, but they did so only after extensive exploration failed. The Canadians drilled 89 exploration wells on their side with no success. They also extended the Dempster Highway, cutting across the center of the Porcupine caribou herds' route.
Another fiction we hear all the time: Oil exploration would destroy polar bear habitat. Doesn't that sound terrific? The reality is polar bears den on the Arctic ice pack, not on land. The administration has positively identified only 15 polar bear dens on the entire Coastal Plain for an 11-year period; that is one or two dens a year. We have a healthy population of polar bears, estimated at about 2,000. The reason is we do not shoot them. You can go to Canada and take a polar bear for a trophy. You can go to Russia. You can't do it in the United States. The only people who can take polar bear are the Native people for subsistence. The environmentalists don't tell you that.
However, they do tell you Prudhoe Bay has been littered with chemical and oil spills, the Arctic having been despoiled by three or four--
whatever figure they want to use. But the figure that is accurate is 17,000 spills since 1970. That is the accurate figure. How can you have those spills with such a pristine environment? The fact is, as a consequence of the environmental oversight and requirements, every spill of any material--even if it is fresh water--has to be reported; any spill that is how you get 17,000 spills.
For example, in 1993 there were 160 spills involving 60,000 gallons. Before you jump to conclusions, only 2 spills involved oil. Roughly 9.5 gallons of oil were spilled from a leaky valve. Any oil and chemical spills have almost always been confined to frozen gravel pads where they are easily cleaned up. Moving more than 1 million barrels of oil a day, everyday, from the ground, through the pipe and onto ships--9.5 gallons of oil spilled. I think that is a remarkable record. Prudhoe Bay is the finest oil field in the world bar none. We send kids up from Anchorage and Fairbanks to pick up the few papers that happen to blow around. It is a summer job.
Another fiction: Producing more oil would simply cause Americans to buy more gas-guzzling cars and defeat conservation efforts. America does need to be more energy efficient. It does need to develop more alternative fuels. Even with increased energy efficiency and conservation, our energy demands are forecast to increase 30 percent by the year 2010. By then, America will be producing just 5.2 million barrels of oil per day. We will be forced to import 65 percent of our oil needs. This certainly poses a threat to our national security. We would need 30 giant foreign-flagged supertankers a day, more than 10,000 a year, coming into our ports to import the oil we need. That creates much more environmental risk than developing our own resources where we have the tough environmental requirements.
The vast majority of Americans oppose disturbing the Alaska Arctic National Refuge--that is what the environmentalists would have you believe. Americans strongly support responsible development when they know the facts about it. That is what I have attempted to do today.
I encourage my colleagues to give me an opportunity to debate them if they want to challenge these facts. A poll taken by the Gordon S. Black Corp. said 56 percent of Americans support ANWR leasing; 37 percent oppose; 74 percent of Americans support efforts to produce domestic oil and natural gas. That is what Governor Bush proposed last night--
producing more oil here at home and not being dependent on imports. Certainly, most Alaskans support ANWR. The entire congressional delegation, the Democratic Governor, 78 percent of the residents of Kaktovik, this little village, support it.
Some say what are we doing exporting from Alaska? We don't export oil from Alaska. There was some exported when we had surplus oil on the west coast of the United States. That has not occurred for several months.
Finally, they suggest we are a wealthy State, we don't need ANWR. That is a ridiculous argument. We have, in Alaska, the highest cost of living in the nation. We have billions of dollars of unmet infrastructure needs like sanitation for our village's health needs. We have no roads across most of Alaska. We have, probably, the most fragile economy of any State in the Union. We have always depended on resource industries, but our timber industry has been shut down by this administration. We have lost our jobs in Ketchikan and Sitka, our only two year-round manufacturing plants. Our oil and gas jobs are down.
The worst thing is we have had 32,000 young Alaskans leave Alaska since 1992 as a consequence of not having opportunities for these people within our State because we are dependent on developing resources and the Federal Government controls the landmass in our State.
I hope as we continually debate the issues before us as we enter this Presidential campaign, and the issue of energy comes to the forefront, as it should, as a distinct issue between the two candidates, we will have a better understanding of the merits of opening up this area of the Arctic for the relief that is needed in this country today. I predict if this administration would commit to opening up this area for oil and gas leasing, you would see a drop in the price of oil overnight. As a consequence, the belief that America meant business when it said we were going to relieve our dependence on imported oil would mean we would not be subject to the whims of the individual who controls, if you will, the difference between the world's capacity to produce and the world's current demand--which is about 1.5 million barrels with supply being a little over the demand. That one person is Saddam Hussein, in Iraq, who is currently producing almost 3 million barrels a day. The fear is he will cut production. If he cuts production, we will see oil prices go from $37 to probably $60 a barrel. That, coupled with the instability associated with the current spokesperson from OPEC, from Venezuela, who has made certain suggestions that clearly the object of OPEC in Venezuela is to protect the interests of the small countries of the world at the expense of the large consumers of hydrocarbons, means we have a very unstable situation.
I hope the American people have a better understanding of what has happened in the last 8 years as this current administration has abandoned the traditional dependence on many sources of energy--oil, natural gas, hydrocarbons associated with our coal industry, our nuclear industry and our hydroelectric industry--and clearly focused the future on our energy supply of natural gas.
As a consequence, we have seen what has happened with natural gas. Demand has gone up, and we are in a situation now where other countries are dictating conditions under which we have to pay the price they charge or go without. It is strictly supply and demand. It has been coming for a long time, and the Clinton-Gore administration bears the responsibility for not having a responsible energy policy. That is why I am so pleased to see Governor Bush come forward and acknowledge what has to be done, and among those issues is more domestic production.
The fact he has stated the belief that we can open up this area safely I think deserves full examination and explanation to the American public. That is what I have attempted to do today.
I thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak in morning business. I see the floor leader, Senator Gorton, is on the floor. I believe the pending business is the Interior appropriations bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Will the Chair inform the Senator from Nevada as to how much time the Senator from Alaska consumed?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-seven minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, that indicates that after the Senator from New York speaks, there will be 25 minutes remaining on this side. Even though it was not part of the order, I ask unanimous consent that the time of the minority be used all at the same time, that there not be any interruption. I believe that was the intent of the unanimous consent agreement entered earlier today--that we would have equal time in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct, although the minority will control 32 minutes following Senator Schumer's statement.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak prior to Senator Schumer and use whatever time I may consume, which will be about 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
