[Pages S2763-S2799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

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

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

Pending:

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

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

Amendments Nos. 3132 and 3133

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

[[Page S2764]]

continues to decline, would uptick. For a period starting at about
2012, we would see an increase in domestic production under ANWR, if
ANWR was open to development. It does not reverse the long-term trend,
which is less U.S. production, more imported oil, but for a relatively
short period, considering our Nation's history, we would see an
increase in domestic production.
The estimate we have from the Energy Information Agency is we would
see about a 2 to 3 percent of oil demand in a given year coming out of
the ANWR production at the peak of that production. The Energy
Information Agency assumes it will take 7 to 12 years before we have
any production from ANWR.
We had a hearing in our Energy Committee. We invited representatives
of some of the major oil companies that have interests on the North
Slope, and the representative from ExxonMobile was asked that very
question: How long will it take to bring production to market if we go
ahead and enact legislation? His estimate was 10 to 12 years. He said:
Assuming there are no legal problems that need to be overcome, it would
take as few as 8 years; more likely, it would take something in the
range of 10 years.

According to the Energy Information Agency, peak production would not
occur for nearly 20 years after initial production. So development
would not address the near-term prices or shortages with which people
are faced.
The figures the Energy Information Agency has given me indicate their
estimate is 54 percent of the oil we consume, as of January, was
imported oil. That is why I believe clearly we need to address the
problem. We need to try to pass comprehensive energy legislation. As I
said before, though, opening the Arctic Refuge is not the answer to
this dependence on foreign oil.
The recent report that the Energy Information Agency came out with
has a quotation in it that I think is very important. This is on page 6
of a report that the Energy Information Agency issued in February of
2002. That was 2 months ago. They say:

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

I will put this second chart up to make the point very graphically.
What the Energy Information Agency is telling us is there will be less
need for us to import oil if we open ANWR, and that reduced need for
imports would come in about 2012. It would be about 2 percent. Instead
of importing 62 percent of our oil in the year 2020, we would be
importing 60 percent of our oil in the year 2020.
The other thing the Energy Information Agency says, which I think is
very instructive, if we carry their projections out--and these are all
their projections; this is technically recoverable oil from ANWR as
they see it--if these are carried out, by the year 2026 those two lines
come together again and we are back in a situation where we are as
dependent on foreign oil in the year 2027, for example, as we would
have been absent any drilling in ANWR.
By the year 2030, their projection is we are going to be 75-percent
dependent upon imports for our oil if ANWR is open for drilling and we
are going to be 75-percent dependent upon imports of foreign oil if
ANWR is not open for drilling. So from their perspective, if we look at
a 28- or 30-year timeframe, they see absolutely no difference in the
extent of our dependence whether we open ANWR or we do not open ANWR.
Another point I think is important to make is this focus on
developing the Arctic Refuge has drawn attention away from real
opportunities we do have to enhance our domestic energy production and
reduce our reliance on imported oil and help us attain energy security.
Let me mention some of these opportunities from which I think we have
had our attention deflected.
First is the development of the abundant gas resources on other parts
of the North Slope that are already open for development, coupled with
the construction of a natural gas transportation system, a pipeline to
bring that gas from the North Slope down to the lower 48. I will speak
some more about each of these in a moment.
A second opportunity I think we have not given enough attention to is
that production from the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. This is a
highly prospective area for recent oil and gas leasing activity, and it
is one where I think we have great potential to produce additional oil.
A third opportunity is new production from lands already under lease
that are not being developed. There are many such lands offshore
Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama, and we need to give more focus to how we
incentivize production out of those areas. Fourth is the reliance on
other forms of energy. We have been trying to make that point
throughout the debate on this energy bill.

Long term, if we are going to avoid the projection on this chart,
which is that we will be 75-percent dependent upon foreign sources of
oil by 2030, we have to find alternative sources of energy as a
substitute for this imported oil. That needs to be a very high priority
for our research and development effort and for the provisions we have
in this bill.
I believe the most important energy issue in Alaska is not the Arctic
Refuge--although hearing the debate one would think that was the
central issue as to whether we did what should be done to meet our
energy needs in the future. The most important issue is Arctic gas. The
North Slope of Alaska contains rich supplies of natural gas. There is
more than 32 million cubic feet of natural gas immediately available in
existing oil fields in the Alaskan North Slope. The total natural gas
estimates are in the area of 100 trillion cubic feet. We do not need
new legislative authority in order to produce this gas.
However, currently, the natural gas that is produced with oil on the
North Slope is being reinjected because there is no transportation
system, there is no pipeline with which to bring that gas from the
North Slope to the lower 48. Congress dealt with the issue in 1976 when
it enacted the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System Act. Responding
to the energy crisis of that decade, Congress called for the immediate
construction of a gas transportation system and an expedited process
for accomplishing that goal. Due to changed economics, due to other
intervening factors, there have been more than two decades that have
passed and we still do not have any pipeline. We do not have any kind
of transportation to bring that gas to the lower 48.
The energy bill pending in the Senate tries to address the issue. The
House-passed bill does not try to address the issue. This bill does. We
would increase the supply of domestically produced natural gas to U.S.
consumers by expediting the construction of the Alaska natural gas
pipeline. It provides for streamlined procedures for permits, for
rights-of-way and certificates needed for the U.S. segments of the
pipeline, as well as financial incentives to reduce the risks of the
project.
We have had a lot of discussion about jobs as part of this debate
about ANWR. This natural gas pipeline I am talking about, which is
distinct from ANWR, the natural gas pipeline creates more than 400,000
new jobs. This is in contrast to the Congressional Research Service
estimate of 60 to 130,000 jobs that would be created by opening the
Arctic Refuge.
Senator Reed, who chairs the Joint Economic Committee, released a new
report last month estimating that opening the Arctic Refuge results in
the creation of 65,000 jobs nationwide by 2020, an employment gain of
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the U.S. workforce as a whole.
Building the pipeline would not only create thousands of new jobs but
also provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry. The project
requires up to 3,500 miles of pipe, 5 million tons of steel. The Senate
bill encourages the use of North American steel and union labor in the
construction of the pipeline. The total cost of the pipeline would be
in the range of $15 to $20 billion. I strongly support going forward
with that and putting whatever we can in this legislation to encourage
its construction.
In addition to these enormous supplies of natural gas from existing
oilfields, there is another substantial opportunity to obtain
additional oil and gas from the Alaska North Slope. This is the
National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. We have a chart that shows

[[Page S2765]]

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

I do think we need to revisit that issue. I hope we can. I hope we
can get some support from the administration to do something more
significant.
I received a letter--I know my colleague, Senator Murkowski, had it
printed in the Record yesterday afternoon--from Secretary of Energy,
Spencer Abraham, our former colleague, for whom I have great respect.
He was citing the various things he is doing as Secretary of Energy to
help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I gather he sent this
letter to all Members of Congress. He said:

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

I am not opposed to him meeting with the AAA to encourage Americans
to drive smarter, but that is not an adequate response to the energy
challenges this country faces. We need to do better. This
administration should be supporting increased CAFE standards. It should
be supporting provisions of this bill to encourage efficiency in the
use of energy and not just depend upon Americans to drive smarter.
You can put a little more air in your tires. You can, perhaps, get
your car tuned up. But the truth is, if the car is manufactured to run
at 12 or 14 miles per gallon--14 miles for each gallon that you buy--
you cannot do a whole lot to solve that problem.
I know there are others who want to speak. There will be
opportunities later for me to add to my comments. Let me conclude by
saying that opening the Arctic Refuge is not, in my view, good
environmental policy. More importantly, it is far from necessary as
part of a national energy policy. Oil and gas development on the
Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge does little for
our Nation's energy security. If you take the long-term view, which is
2030, it does nothing to deal with our energy security needs.
It is a diversion from the efforts we should be taking as a country
to address the important subject of energy, a subject that is crucial
to our economy, to our way of life and our future. I urge my colleagues
to join me in the effort to oppose opening this area for drilling.
I believe Senator Breaux was expecting to speak at this time in favor
of one or both of the amendments, so I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to follow the distinguished
chairman of the Energy Committee. Although we differ on the conclusion,
I certainly have the utmost respect for the good work he has done in
bringing this bill to the floor, along with the Senator from Alaska,
Mr. Murkowski, in an effort to try to develop something we do not have
in this country and that we desperately need, and that is an energy
policy that is good for America.
The energy policy we have--or probably do not have--is probably good
for OPEC but it is not good for America. Why do I say it is good for
OPEC? Because the facts are that we import about 57 to 58 percent of
the oil we use in this country. It comes not from America, not from
allies in Canada, or good friends in Mexico, but about 58 percent of
the oil and gas we use in this country for everything we need, from
agriculture to cars and trucks to our residences being heated in the
winter and cooled in the summer--that 58 percent of the oil and gas we
need for all those services which are critically important to the
United States and every citizen of this country does not come from
America. It comes from countries where, if people in this country did
what they did in their country, they would go to the penitentiary.
What am I talking about? Every few weeks people in OPEC, the sheiks
and the people who control the energy in those countries, meet in fancy
resort hotels around the world, they meet in secret, and they determine
how much they are going to price the oil that America has to buy. They
regularly and openly fix prices. If companies that are providers in
this country did that in America, they would go to the penitentiary.
That is clear. It is illegal. Yet we as a nation have accepted that
policy on the part of the principal supplier of oil for our country.
We do not control our destiny; we do not control our future, as long
as we rely on people who fix prices to provide this country with the
ingredients we need to be a strong and secure and prosperous nation.
That has to come to an end.
It is not going to be easy. There is not one answer. There is a
multitude of answers which we have to incorporate in an energy bill
which is balanced, which provides help and assistance for new forms of
energy, for alternate forms of energy.
I voted for $6 billion worth of tax incentives for new forms of
energy. Many people in Louisiana think it is ludicrous that I am doing
that. When I talk

[[Page S2766]]

about wind power and chicken manure being converted into energy, people
in my State say: What are you doing? Why don't you try to encourage oil
and gas production? I say: Yes, that is important, but alternative
sources of energy are also important.
The point I make about where we get our energy supplies is just this
simple. If we were dependent for, say--think about it--58 percent of
the food we eat in this country, suppose it came from a foreign source
which was not very dependable. People would be marching in the streets
in Washington, saying you have to stop that policy. It is insane. We
can't depend on foreign countries for our food. It is essential to our
national security. You cannot allow a policy which gets agricultural
products from countries on which we cannot depend. People would march
in the streets--and rightfully so.
That is exactly what we do when it comes to energy. We are satisfied.
We are fat, we are happy, until they turn the faucet off just a little
bit. It happened in 1973 and it brought this country to our knees. We
had long lines at filling stations. We had lack of supplies. We had
people getting in fights trying to buy gasoline so they could take
their children to the doctor and to school and run commerce in this
country. We saw what they could do. At that time we were probably 30-
percent dependent on imported oil. Today it is about 58 percent. We
look around the world and the circumstances today are much worse than
they were in the 1970s.

There has been an attempted coup in Venezuela, which is one of our
largest suppliers. The President of that country is in bed with Castro
and Libya and Iraq, and we are dependent on them for much of the energy
supply in America. Purchase of it comes from Louisiana where we refine
it in Lake Charles. Is that a secure source? Of course not. They just
had a revolution. The guy they kicked out is back. He is not
particularly a friend of the United States when he is giving oil to
Cuba at discounted prices and threatens to cut it off to us at any
moment.
Getting oil from Iraq, is that a stable source? The Middle East
situation today is as volatile as it has been in generations.
So the point I would make to start this discussion is we, in these
United States, have to be more reasonable, more balanced in how we
approach the solution. There is no absolute, safe method of achieving
energy independence that doesn't have some risk. Let's admit that up
front. That is, of course, true.
But we have a policy in this country when it comes to oil and gas.
Think about it. You could not drill offshore anywhere on the east
coast, from Maine to Key West. It is all locked in--or, rather, locked
out from any development, although there are potential reserves in
those areas that are substantial.
If you look on the west coast of this country, you can go all the way
from Washington State down the west coast, all the way down to Mexico
and you cannot have any new leasing in any of those areas whatsoever.
We did that because Republican administrations and Democratic
administrations, Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses, have
taken all those areas and said: Don't do it here. Not in my backyard.
The problem is the backyard is the entire west coast of the United
States. Don't do it in my backyard on the east coast. The problem is it
is the entire east coast of America.
Some have said, and some of the environmental groups have said, ``Do
it off Louisiana,'' as if we were not important from their perspective,
and as if we didn't have some of the most valuable resources in terms
of wetlands, fin fish, birds, oysters, shrimp, and all of the fur-
bearing animals that we have in the very fragile wetlands where we lose
25 square miles a year because of erosion. But they are saying: Do it
there. We are doing it there. We will continue to do it there because
we believe this is a national issue and we should make our contribution
towards energy security. We have done it for 60 years off our coast and
on our shores. There have been mistakes. There have been problems, but
we have learned from those mistakes. And today it is much more secure
than bringing oil in rusty-bucket ships that leak and spill oil on the
oceans of this country. Less than 2 percent of the oil that finds its
way into the oceans of America and the world come from offshore
development. Most of it comes in tanker discharge, industrial runoff,
and other sources, and natural seepage, but not from offshore
production activities--less than 2 percent, according to the National
Academy of Sciences. I think we have shown it can be done safely and in
a fashion that protects the environment.
There is no place I would rather fish in America than the Gulf of
Mexico. We have literally hundreds and hundreds of platforms that have
wells, exploration wells, and production wells that produce natural gas
and oil for the rest of this country. We have a pipeline system that
takes natural gas and sends it to Chicago, New York, New England, or to
the west coast, and all over this country, coming from one particular
source in the gulf where there is a 60-year record of it being done
safely. Despite that, when we tried to have additional leasing in the
gulf, Congress tried to stop that even.

President Clinton, to his credit, proposed a compromise called lease
sale 181 in the Gulf of Mexico. To my regret, the Bush administration
cut that by two-thirds. It was a proposed lease sale that was two-
thirds less than President Clinton had proposed in the Gulf of Mexico.
And this Congress tried to eliminate it completely because they did not
want it in their backyard.
From where is it going to come? From where is it going to come, if
not from a domestic source right here in this country where we have
shown we can do it safely, in a secure fashion, and in an
environmentally sensitive fashion? I think there are many parts of the
country that are doing their share.
The concept that because it is a wildlife refuge and somehow we are
not supposed to be able to do anything on it other than look at caribou
is ridiculous. Here are the wildlife management and wetland management
districts around the country where we have production already. There
are 9 facilities in Texas and 12 in Louisiana. Every single wildlife
refuge in Louisiana--which has some of the best in the world, the best
in the country, and which has more wildlife features and more fragile
ecology than the North Slope--12 separate production facilities on
wildlife refuges, one of them owned by the Audubon Society, which has
production on their own refuge from which they get royalties, strongly
support it, but nowhere else.
I think it has been shown that, in fact, you can have production, if
it is done properly and in a sensitive fashion--and in wildlife
refuges, as well as in areas that are not. It can be done. It has been
done and it has been done safely.
This is an example of the type of facility in Louisiana. Look at how
small of a print that is. In Alaska, there are 19 million acres in
ANWR. When we are talking about reserving a portion of that 19 million
acres, which is less than the size of Dulles Airport, to do one type of
operation, of course, it makes an imprint. Is it huge? Of course not.
Is it dangerous? Of course not. Can it be done safely? The answer is
yes. History has shown us that it can be done in an environmentally
safe fashion. We would not need that, if we were not importing 58
percent of our oil from countries that are not safe and not reliable.
If we had enough energy production from other sources, then we would
not need to do it in the wetlands because we would have more than we
needed right here in this country. But that is not the case when we are
importing 58 percent from places that fix prices and which have us
literally over a barrel when it comes to having enough energy to run
the cars, to run industry, and agricultural entities in this country.
We can't afford not to look at developing it here in this country. That
is the point I would make.
There are some who say we will have a problem with the caribou up
there. Caribou aren't endangered. They are like a bunch of cows. There
are more of them now than there were years before. In addition to that,
we are not damaging the lifestyle of caribou by having some energy
development in the same area they happen to be walking through once or
twice a year.
Some say: You can't do anything up there because of the caribou. They
have nice pictures of caribou. They say: Don't do anything to damage
the

[[Page S2767]]

caribou. The caribou are more plentiful in that part of the country
than they were in Prudhoe Bay. They are doing quite well, thank you
very much.
For those who said, ``Well, you are going to interfere with their
lifestyle,'' look at this photograph. These are not dummies that
somebody put out on the North Slope. The Senator from Alaska knows that
area quite well. It is his State. These are living, breathing,
multiplying caribou within a stone's throw of a production facility in
Alaska. Does this look like the caribou lifestyle is being interfered
with? Does it look as if they are not happy and content, grazing near
the pipeline and production facility?
Some will make the argument you can't do it because the caribou walk
across this area twice a year, they might calve, and it might disrupt
their lifestyle.
Importing 58 percent of our energy is disrupting the lifestyle of
Americans, and it is threatening the security of the United States.
We don't want to get into another Afghanistan or have the Middle East
shut off the oil supply to this country or ask how we are going to
defend ourselves and be protectors of the world when we are buying oil
from people who have turned against us because of conflicts with
Islamic portions of this world.
We have to be secure. We have to be confident that we can depend on
energy. We ought to do whatever is necessary to produce it in this
country instead of bending over on our knees saying, please, OPEC,
don't disrupt our energy supplies; please, OPEC, don't charge us too
much; please, please, please.
You can't say that when you don't have someone to back it up. What
are we going to do? Threaten not to buy their oil? We do not have that
luxury because we are not doing enough to produce energy right here in
America.
For those people who say, ``Don't drill in ANWR,'' get off the
caribou argument. They made that argument about the Prudhoe Bay
pipeline; it was going to kill all of the caribou; they will move
somewhere else; they weren't going to have calves. That has not proven
to be correct by one iota. The caribou are there and they are thriving.
That simply, in my opinion, is not a legitimate argument as to what we
should be looking at. We should be looking at it from the standpoint of
safety and making sure it has the utmost of environmental equipment
that is needed to make sure it can be done safely. I would suggest that
it doesn't matter how we protect it. It is a lot safer than importing
energy that we are bringing in by tankers from around the world.
Some have said that in order to get this measure passed we have to
sweeten the pot for some of the steelworkers who lost their jobs. I am
not for that. That is not what the issue should be.
Some have said maybe our friends in the Middle East and the Israelis
will help and maybe we can get enough votes to pass this measure. It
should pass on its own.
I would vote for trying to get something good from the standpoint of
energy security. It should pass or fail on its own merits. We ought to
be able to look and decide whether it is a good idea.
When I was back in the House in the 1970s, we wrote the Alaska Lands
Act. We looked at this area. We set aside the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge with 19 million acres with the clear thought that we ought to
take a small portion of it and look to see whether we could possibly do
more for energy. The USGS tells us that it equals a 30-year supply of
oil coming from Saudi Arabia.
Some say there isn't much up there. We will not know until we take a
look. The USGS tells us that it is potentially a 30-year supply--the
equivalent of what we get from Saudi Arabia. That is not insignificant.
That is a huge amount. Some say it is a 1-day supply. It is 1 day if we
cut off all other sources. If you look at it from the standpoint of
potentially how much is there, a 30-year potential is very significant
considering what we get from Saudi Arabia.
We may not get this thing done. We may continue to say: Don't do it
in my backyard; don't do it on the east coast, don't do it on the west
coast, don't do it in the Gulf of Mexico, don't do it--don't, don't.
But my point is simply this: If not there, where? For somebody who
thinks it is better to import it from the Middle East rather than
produce it in our country with our own people running the program and
with our environmental laws in effect, I suggest that is not a good
tradeoff.
This amendment should pass. We should go about the business of
bringing energy security to this country.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BREAUX. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Senator from Louisiana: Some people have
suggested that the better answer is, rather than opening ANWR to
drilling, we should simply concentrate on the Gulf of Mexico and put up
every possible lease sale. I think that lease sales are already taking
place in 2,000 to 3,000 feet of water. And the industry has had a very
successful effort in producing there. It requires a great deal of
technology.

But I wonder if the Senator from Louisiana believes this is a better
solution than exploration in other areas of the country, where States
such as Louisiana or Alaska want the development to occur?
Mr. BREAUX. From a selfish standpoint, I could say: Don't do it
anywhere else. Just do it in Louisiana. It creates jobs. It creates
income. And it creates infrastructure. We are happy to support that
activity. If I looked at it from only a parochial standpoint, I would
say: Only do it in the Gulf of Mexico. Don't do it anywhere else. But
that is not in the best interest of the country.
You have to do it in the gulf, but you have to do it in other places
where oil may be present. One of the most promising and potentially the
largest supplies, other than the Gulf of Mexico, is, in fact, the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
So if you look at it as national policy, it is not enough that
Louisiana and Texas do it. Other States have to be involved; and ANWR
is one of those sites. We cannot keep saying ``don't do it here'' and
``don't do it there'' and ``don't, don't, don't.'' The fact is, we
ought to do it where we can find available energy. I would say ANWR is
one of those.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator would show us that particular
chart because I think it depicts the statement that has been made
continually: ``Well, not in my backyard.''
Mr. BREAUX. That is it. It is easy to say: Don't do it in my own
backyard. I want to be with environmentalists. And that is fine, but at
some point you have to say: We have to have a balanced program.
I talked to some environmentalists about ANWR, and I said: I tell you
what, what if we limit it to 1 acre? Would you be satisfied if we only
did it on 1 acre in Alaska? The answer was: No. The fact is, they don't
want to do it on 1 acre or 20 acres. They just don't want to do it
because it becomes a symbol of what they stand for. And I understand
that.
But we are in a crisis in this country. I am saying you have to have
a balanced approach. This is what has occurred around natural gas, the
cleanest burning fuel, the least threatening in this country. People
don't like nuclear because it is dangerous. Natural gas is dangerous.
They don't like coal because it is dirty. Natural gas is the cleanest
fuel we have.
Look at what has happened. As I show you this on the map I have in
the Chamber, this area is subject to no restrictions. You cannot drill
for potentially 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas on the west coast
because it is all blocked off. There are 31 trillion cubic feet of
potential natural gas reserves on the east coast. You cannot drill a
well anywhere there.
There is lease sale 181, which we just fought in this Congress, where
people want to say: Don't do anything here. There are 24 trillion cubic
feet of potential natural gas reserves, and Florida is importing over
90 percent of the gas they use from other sources. They do not produce
but a trickle of their gas in Florida. They import over 90 percent, and
they say: Don't do it off my pretty beaches. Don't do it off my
million-dollar houses. Go do it somewhere else. There isn't anyplace
else.
The only place we are doing it is shown here on the map. So look at
the

[[Page S2768]]

interior of the country. We have more places where you can't look for
oil and gas than you have where oil and gas potential exists.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Would my friend from Louisiana yield for a question?
Mr. BREAUX. Sure.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I don't want to argue with the Senator's basic point. I
am in general agreement with him, that we ought to be drilling some
places where we are not drilling today. But the chart the Senator has
seems to indicate you are not drilling in northwestern Mexico. That is
one of the largest gasfields in this country, the San Juan Basin. We
are drilling at an amazing rate up there. I support the drilling that
goes on there, by and large.
I do not know about all the rest of the Rocky Mountain region, if
that map is intending to indicate you cannot drill in it. But an awful
lot of our State is being drilled in, and appropriately so.
Mr. BREAUX. I just say, referring to the map, the access restrictions
I am talking about on the coast clearly are a total prohibition. And
this is a total prohibition. This has restrictions on access to those
areas. For some of these areas, it should be.
But what we are talking about today is not access restrictions to
ANWR; we are talking about a total prohibition on ANWR. That is not
access restrictions. That is a lot further.
If we want to pass a bill that says we are going to carefully
coordinate how you can get into that area, how you can exit that area,
what you can do in that area, that is one thing; but the legislation we
have in the current law of this country is: no access. That is not
access restrictions; that is totally no access to areas that have
potentially huge amounts of energy.
Again, I would say, don't do ANWR if we don't need it. But anytime
this country is importing 58 percent of our energy, I would suggest we
need it. Are we importing 58 percent of our energy because we like to
do that? Of course not. We are over a barrel paying OPEC prices, which
they fix every 6 weeks.
I think, if we are going to have a national energy policy, everybody
has to come to the table, not just half of the equation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin, if I may, by first of all
saying it is my intention to answer each and every one of the
assertions just made by the Senator from Louisiana and the Senator from
Alaska. There is ample proof that those of us who oppose drilling in
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge are strongly in favor of drilling in many
other parts of this country and are strongly in favor of a policy which
keeps the United States on the cutting edge of energy production.
In a few moments I will show how we are producing extraordinary
amounts of natural gas, almost all the coal we consume, huge amounts of
oil and other sources of energy, and, in fact, we are building new
powerplants all across this country.
None of us are standing here with our head in the sand arguing that
we should not continue to produce energy. Moreover, I think the
arguments made underscore the fundamental difference in the approach by
those of us who believe there is a different energy future for the
United States that does not require us to do injury to something we
have set aside for a purpose.
Beginning with a Republican President, and going through a series of
Presidents over the last 25, 30 years, there has been an honoring of an
ethic in the United States that suggests that the concept of a preserve
should be exactly that.
My colleague, a moment ago, said: What would happen if we said, drill
in only 1 acre? Well, everyone understands that if you begin with 1
acre, it does not stay at 1 acre. It will progress. The first acre is
the violation of the notion of set-aside. The first acre is the
violation of the concept of pristineness. The first acre is the
destruction of the concept of an arctic wildlife refuge that is absent
any kind of industrialization.
My arguments against drilling in ANWR are not based on the caribou.
That was a wonderful picture, a great discussion of caribou, but that
is not the principal argument here. It is interesting, however--and I
will show, a little later, that our own Fish & Wildlife Service--I have
heard my colleagues referring to radical environmental groups. The
people who are cautioned against this are the administration's own
functionaries who worked on this for years. The Fish & Wildlife Service
finds there would be problems with respect to the ecosystem. The U.S.
Geologic Survey has serious questions with almost all of the numbers
that have been put forward by the proponents.
So I begin at the beginning. I want to try to lay a record out here
that I think is clear and, I hope, understandable and, I hope, in the
end, compelling about why it is inappropriate to drill in the Arctic
Wildlife Refuge. But I do want to say, the two visions are different
visions of the energy future of our country.
I honor what the Senator from Louisiana said. He is a strong advocate
for his State. He is a terrific Senator. And he is right, we do need to
do more drilling. I am in favor of more drilling. We should do more
drilling in the deep water Gulf of Mexico, which Lord John Brown, the
CEO, chairman of British Petroleum, says is the most significant
oilfield unexploited in the world, which is where at least British
Petroleum would like to put its energy, its efforts, not in ANWR.
But let's begin at the beginning.
Our colleagues have come to the floor and suggested to our fellow
Senators that this is the first time in history that a ``national
security'' issue has been filibustered.
First of all, one could make a serious argument about the degree to
which this is, in fact, a national security issue. But I will accept
the question of how much oil we import. The question of American
dependency on oil is legitimately a concern of the United States. But
it is not addressed by drilling in ANWR, No. 1, and, No. 2, the record
shows clearly that this is not the first time such an issue has been
filibustered.
If ANWR is important to the energy national security of the United
States because it would affect how much oil might be available or how
much oil we are importing, then CAFE standards are equally a national
security issue for our country. In fact, CAFE standards are a far
better response to national security because even the oil companies
will tell us they can't produce oil from ANWR for anywhere from 7 to 10
years.
When my colleagues come to the floor of the Senate and suggest to us
that the crisis in the Middle East is a reason to drill in ANWR, that
is a misleading argument because no oil will flow from ANWR, given the
permitting, lawsuit, developmental processes, as I will show later,
until from 7 to 10 years from now. And you don't even get to the peak
production until somewhere, perhaps, around 2020.
That said, if you put CAFE standards in place, you would have a much
faster response to the oil. You would get 1 million barrels saved in a
decade, and that would grow exponentially. In ANWR, as you drill, you
lose the oil. You reach a point of peak production, and then it starts
to go down. But if you put CAFE standards in place, it grows and grows
through the years. So in fact, CAFE standards result in three times the
savings of ANWR.
I don't want to get into a CAFE standards argument. That is not why I
am here. But CAFE standards is as much a national security issue for
the United States as the question of whether or not we drill in ANWR. I
will show later how ANWR doesn't even affect the total amount of oil on
which we are dependent except for this tiny little sliver that is
barely discernable on a graph.
The point is, our colleagues have suggested this is the first time. I
want to say this because the accuracy that disappears in this process
is very important. The fact is, in the 101st Congress, second session--
I was a member of that Senate; I remember the vote--we had a motion to
invoke cloture on the Motor Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Act. It failed. In
other words, it was filibustered. It was filibustered, and 42 Senators
managed to prevent us from passing the effort by Senator Richard Bryant
of Nevada to have CAFE standards, which is a national security issue.
Among those Senators who voted to continue the filibuster and not
allow us

[[Page S2769]]

to put CAFE standards in place were both Senators from Alaska and the
Senator from Texas, who have asserted that we must allow a straight
vote on ANWR. Let's dispense with the national security argument, and
there is further reason to dispense with it because of the amount of
oil we have in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
I want to show this chart. This is the world supply of oil production
versus the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. If the Presiding Officer is having
trouble seeing ANWR, that is because here it is. It is this yellow line
at the very bottom of the chart versus all the oil production of the
world.
The United States of America only has 3 percent of the oil reserves
of the world, including ANWR, including the Gulf of Mexico, our
national monuments, all of our oil. Every single year, the United
States of America uses 25 percent of the world's oil. I don't know any
child in school who can't quickly figure out that if we only own 3
percent but we use 25 percent of the world's production, we have a
problem.
We have a serious problem.
You can't drill your way out of this problem. If you drill all the
oil in ANWR, you still face a fundamental issue which is the United
States of America is overly dependent on foreign oil and is growing
more and more so.

In 1973, when we first met the cartel's oil crisis, we had a
dependency on foreign oil of about 35 percent. Yet we responded,
supposedly, with CAFE standards, with more production. Today, we are
about 55 or 56 percent dependent on the rest of the world. And in the
next few years, we will grow to 60 percent. Does anybody in their right
mind believe if we depend today on foreign oil for 60 percent of our
oil, that ANWR, which is only a fraction of the 3 percent that we
possess, somehow has the ability to make a difference to the United
States? The answer is no. No, you can't. You just can't squeeze that
enough.
So there are two competing visions here: A vision of the status quo,
a vision that is similar to the one that is reflected in a willingness
to avoid doing anything about global warming, even though every
scientist says global warming is a problem; a willingness to ignore the
need to be involved in the realities of science versus our desire just
to go along the way it is and not upset the equilibrium in any way
whatsoever.
The fact is that about 70 percent of America's oil use goes to
transportation. When I hear my colleagues talk about our terrible
dependency on the Middle East for oil, ANWR doesn't end the terrible
dependency on the Middle East for oil. I just heard the Senator from
Louisiana say: Gosh, it would be great if we could vote in a way that
we are not the hostages of Middle Eastern countries that can cut off
our oil.
Well, yes, it would be great. But voting for the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge doesn't do that. It leaves you still 60-percent dependent on
foreign oil. And any cartel, any terrorist, any country that wants to
hold the United States hostage will hold us hostage until we liberate
ourselves from our oil gluttony, dependency, whatever you want to call
it.
Those two visions are the vision of the status quo over here, and a
vision over here of those who believe there is a different energy
future for the United States.
I quickly say as an outline, my sense of that energy future for the
United States begins with four important principles. Those principles
speak directly to what the Senator from Louisiana just said about
whether we are willing to drill.
No. 1, absent an exhaustion of remedies and a life-threatening threat
to the United States, absent that, the United States should do nothing
that doesn't make economic sense. Principle No. 1: It makes economic
sense to do what we choose to do absent some life-threatening challenge
that is coming down the road.
Principle No. 2: We should commit ourselves again, given the same
caveat, absent a threat that we have just got to respond to, we should
commit ourselves that the choices we make do not diminish the quality
of life of any American at all. So it makes economic sense. We don't
diminish the quality of life. We can make those choices now.
Principle No. 3: All of us who are opposed to the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge must have the courage to stand up and say we are going to be
dependent on oil still for 30 to 50 years or more in this country. It
will take that long to make the energy transition, to make the
transportation transition. And what we must do is put in place a set of
policies that begin to accelerate our capacity in an economically
viable way to begin to make that transition to this new energy future.
That is alternatives and renewables and the hydrogen fuel cell and
hybrid cars and a host of other things.
I don't know why my colleagues are so pessimistic about America's
capacity to meet a challenge through the skill and creativity of our
entrepreneurs.
When we put our entrepreneurial skill and energy to work in the
United States of America, there is nothing we can't do. We have proven
it--when we went to space. We proved it in the Manhattan Project when
we needed to create a response to the terror of the Axis Powers and win
World War II. We have proven it time and again.
I believe that just as President Kennedy put a challenge to the
country saying we are going to go to the Moon in 10 years--not knowing,
incidentally, if we could in fact get there, not knowing if it was in
fact achievable, but telling America that the reason we are going to do
this is because it is difficult. And we did it.
In 1990, when everybody said, oh, it is going to cost $8 billion to
reduce the amount of sulfur in our air as part of the Clean Air Act and
we cannot do it in that time period, what happened, Mr. President? We
did it faster than we ever thought we would or could, and we did it for
a cost not of $8 billion, or for $4 billion, which the environmental
people thought it would cost; we did it for $2 billion, and we did it
faster.
The reason we did that was that no one was able to factor in the
exponential benefits of technology, the rate at which one technological
discovery spurned the next technological discovery. The way, in fact,
that the serious commitment of the United States could do it invited
private capital markets to make the decision that, hey, that is worth
the investment. It is the old field of dreams: Build it, and they will
come. We decided we were going to build it, and they came, and we did
it faster.
My colleagues are very pessimistic about the ability of the United
States to bring online all of these other capacities to do these things
more efficiently, cleanly, and effectively, and we can create tens of
thousands, millions of jobs in this country, putting people to work in
production for other parts of the world that also have the same demands
and needs.
Again, I repeat, we cannot drill our way out of America's energy
challenge. We have to invent our way out of this challenge. We should
begin now to encourage the greatest laboratories, our universities, our
venture capitalists, the private sector, in the strongest way possible
to begin to move us to this new energy future where America is not
dependent upon these other countries.
I am particularly sensitive when I hear my colleague say we don't
want our young men and women sent off to these countries and put at
risk. Let me tell you, I think one of the things I have fought for as
hard as anything in the Senate is common sense about how we wage our
wars and where and when we put people at risk.
Mr. President, this is a false promise to America. The sons and
daughters of America are more at risk every day that we remain
prisoners of this equation where more than 45 percent of the world's
oil supply is in Saudi Arabia. There is nothing we can do about that.
We don't have as much. No matter what we try to do, we won't be able to
repeat it. Moreover, the amount of oil in ANWR will not affect the
price of oil globally at all. It doesn't create the kind of
independence we want.
This is a statement of Lee Raymond, chairman and chief executive
officer of ExxonMobil Corporation. He is in the oil industry. He knows
what he is talking about:

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

That is a chief executive of an oil company.

[[Page S2770]]

Whether or not we do ANWR with respect to price is also critical. The
first President Bush said:

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

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

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

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

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

Here is what the Senator said:

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

Once again, I cannot go back in history to a time when I wasn't here.
But I do know that Paul Tsongas, as late as 1992, was opposed to
drilling and certainly had no sense of any commitment he had made at
that point in time in that regard.
In this debate, as I mentioned a moment ago, I want to deal with the
question of production. The Senator from Louisiana asked: What are we
going to do? Where are we going to produce our energy? He asked
legitimate questions, such as: If we are not going to do it here, how
do we do it there, and so forth.
Let me clarify this for the record. The proponents of drilling in the
Arctic Refuge want to cast those of us who don't want to do it as
somehow anti-energy production. As I have just described, I have a
vision--and I think others share it--of huge energy production for the
United States of America. We cannot grow our economy if we don't grow
our energy production. We want to grow our economy, and we want the
jobs that come with it. We need the strength for our Nation. Of course,
we have to expand our energy production. Here is where these debates
always somehow get dragged down, because people want to go to the
places--I don't know, for sort of a debate advantage or political
advantage but not where the truth is.
This debate is not about whether or not we need to expand our energy.
This debate is over how we expand our energy. How do we do it? Do we do
it in ways that we know violate the air, leave toxic waste sites, tear
apart the health of our fellow citizens, that pour particulates into
the air so we have more emphysema, more lung disease, more cancer or do
we try to use the ingenuity God gave us to go find the cleaner, more
thoughtful technologies that make a difference in the long-term future
of our country and indeed the planet?
That is the choice. Once again, I say there are those who want the
status quo where they think all we do is drill oil, and there are those
who believe there is a different energy future for the country.
Let me point out, America produces almost all the coal that we
consume, and the tax package that is in this energy bill, if we pass
it, promotes clean coal--clean coal.
America produces about 85 percent of the natural gas that we consume,
and this energy bill includes a provision to federally subsidize the
construction of the massive gas pipeline to carry the estimated 35
trillion cubic feet of natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska to
the lower 48 States.
Those who argue that we are coming to this energy unconscious ignore
the fact that in this very bill, there is a provision to build a
pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 States so we can burn clean energy
in an intelligent way.
We hear that those of us opposing the development of ANWR are even
against electricity production. Wrong again. In New England alone we
have built 12 new powerplants in the past 2 years. We have put more
than 3,500 megawatts online, another 12 new powerplants are under
construction and will come online in the next 2 years, putting an
additional 6,300 megawatts online. There has been no opposition to
these projects.
We produce a significant amount of oil in America. We do not produce
all we consume, as I have just described, and that will never happen
without some extraordinary introduction of efficiencies and
alternatives. I have explained why, and I do not have to go back over
that, but we remain one of the largest oil producers in the world
today. I say this because given the debate in this Chamber, Americans
might believe the only oil in the Nation is somehow underneath the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge and we are preventing the only oil in the Nation
from being drilled. That is just not true.
According to the Energy Information Administration of the United
States, we are one of the top oil producers in the world today. In
2001, the United States produced roughly as much oil on a daily basis
as Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet Union, which is about 8 to 9
million barrels a day.
America produced more than twice as much oil as Iran, more than three
times as much as Iraq, more than three times as much as the United Arab
Emirates, and more than three times as much as Canada. The idea that we
have blocked all the oil development is absolutely ridiculous, faced
with those statistics.
I want to talk about the Gulf of Mexico. Ask an oil company executive
privately right now--and some of them have gone on record publicly--
whether they really want to dig in Alaska. The answer is sometimes no,
or it depends. Oil companies are holding 7,000 leases today for
deepwater exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and not using most of them.
The reason they have not drilled in the Gulf of Mexico where they
already have the permits is because they have waited for the price of
oil to go up because that helps the economics.
The fact is, if tomorrow the United States were cut off, it would not
be only Alaska we would look to; it would be the Gulf of Mexico; it
would be other oil supplies of the United States to which we would
look.
According to the Minerals Management Service, there are between 16
and 25 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the central
and western Gulf of Mexico. That depends on the price, as I will
explain in a moment.
Economically recoverable oil is different from other categories of
oil that are in the ground and available. ``Economically recoverable''
reflects what you can get at the current cost of oil.

One of the interesting points is most of the studies of our
colleagues who come in here and say we ought to do this and create
700,000 jobs and so forth are based on a completely false price for
oil, not the price we have today.
Development in the Gulf of Mexico has accelerated. According to the
Minerals Management Service, 42 new deepwater fields have come online
since 1995. Production is expected to climb from under 1 million
barrels per day in 1995 to as much as 1.9 million barrels per day 3
years from now.

[[Page S2771]]

The Gulf of Mexico reserves are so promising that Lord Brown, whom I
mentioned earlier, the CEO of British Petroleum, calls them some of the
most promising reserves in the world. He was asked where the most
important place to find oil is in the United States. He was asked this
in an interview by ``60 Minutes'' a couple of months ago. Here is what
he said:

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

Let me highlight some of the production that is underway in Alaska
because it has been suggested that somehow we are shutting down
Alaska's capacity to pump oil.
Last May, the State of Alaska completed a lease sale of 950,000 acres
on the North Slope. It is the largest lease by any State in history,
and they have announced another 7 million acres will be put up for
lease in the coming years.
The State of Alaska has scheduled 15 oil and gas leases on 15 million
acres.
In 1999, the Bureau of Land Management held a lease sale of 4 million
acres in the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. It is in the process
of releasing 3 million acres and other plans and it has announced a
third lease sale of a planning area of 10 million acres.
In April of 2001, BP, Phillips, and ExxonMobil predicted that there
is at least 7.8 billion barrels of oil to be developed on the North
Slope of Alaska.
In many ways, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge represents our God-given
natural strategic petroleum reserve. If, indeed, 20 years from now none
of these things I have predicted happen, if we are so backed up in a
corner, if technology does not come through, if we do not do our work,
then at least we might have had the wisdom to have held on to this God-
given strategic petroleum reserve, rather than going for it right now
at a time when it is not necessary and in demand.
Let me speak to some of the important issues that I think have to be
clarified as part of the record.
No. 1, how much oil is in Alaska? We hear of different amounts of oil
that we could find there. There are very different estimates. Some
people say more than 16 billion barrels; some say far less; some argue
not enough to make development economically viable. That is not where I
am. I am not trying to go to either extreme, and I think those who only
go to the extremes do a disservice to the debate.
I would like to present what I think is the amount of oil that could
be technically recovered, and that is the amount of oil that could be
extracted using today's technology without any consideration of cost.
Of course, we know cost is a consideration, but I am going to deal with
it technically.
I have heard this reference continually to radical environmental
groups. I do not think the United States Geological Survey is a radical
environmental group. They say there is a 95-percent probability that at
least 6 billion barrels of oil are technically recoverable. There is a
5-percent probability that at least 16 billion might be technically
recoverable. The mean, or the most likely outcome, is that 10 billion
barrels of oil are technically recoverable.
The second question is then, How much is economically recoverable?
This is an estimate of how much oil you could produce at a certain
price of oil. That number matters actually much more than the technical
reserves because oil companies simply do not produce oil they cannot
bring to the market profitably.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, again, if oil is priced at
$25 a barrel, then there is a 95-percent chance that 2 billion barrels
are economically recoverable. There is a 5-percent chance that 9
billion barrels are economically recoverable.
A mean chance, or the most likely outcome, is 5 billion barrels are
economically recoverable. I might add, these numbers are taken straight
from the Congressional Research Service briefing on the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge, and the cost estimate is directly from the Energy Information
Administration reported by CRS.
It is difficult to estimate how much oil might be in the refuge.
There are complicating factors, but for the claim to keep coming at us
that the refuge is going to produce 16 billion barrels and to make all
the arguments dependent on that is not to do justice to the
probabilities I put forward and to the realities of oil exploration.
The claim is not only unrealistic, it runs counter to what proponents
claim to be the leading reason for drilling, because the leading reason
for drilling is that it is going to produce for us cheap oil.
If it is going to produce cheap oil, you diminish the amount of
recoverable oil because the economics do not work. So if you are
driving the price down--you cannot get caught in this argument and have
it both ways.
I also want to highlight the important difference between what is
called in-place oil, technically recoverable oil, and economically
recoverable oil. I know this is a little arcane, but I want to do it
because I want the record to reflect this is not about caribou alone,
it is not about some ``not in my back yard.'' This is about clear
science, economics, oil policy, national security policy, energy
policy, and the long-term interests of our country.
The fact is these definitions are vital to understand and to weigh
the choice we have. On Alaska's North Slope, near Prudhoe Bay, there is
a field called West Sak. In 1989, Arco estimated the West Sak field
held as much as 13 billion barrels of oil in place, with another 7
billion listed as potential. Estimates published in the Society of
Petroleum Engineers placed the estimate at more than 30 billion barrels
of oil in total. But the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
estimates that only 370 million barrels of oil, less than 2 percent of
the oil in that reserve, will be produced through the year 2020.
Why? Because that is all that is economically recoverable. This is
Alaska itself telling us it is limited because of the price. It is not
enough to say there is oil in the ground. We have to understand how
much one can get out, at what kind of price, and what is realistic. We
are going to hear that with emerging technologies and still-to-be-
invented technologies, the amount of economically recoverable oil might
rise. I concede that. That is true. That is a positive thing, if it
happens in the future. But it is also true that the amount of
economically recoverable oil may be less and the price may go down.
Why may it go down? Because a whole bunch of people are already
starting to push that technology curve in the alternatives, and if
suddenly someone comes in with the capacity to do the hydrogen fuel
cell or other things, the entire transportation mix and dependency of
the United States changes, the demand curve goes down, and the price
goes down, and far less oil will be recoverable.
On March 10, 2002, the New York Times published a story with the
following headline: ``Oil Industry Hesitates Over Moving into Arctic
Refuge.'' The article highlights why the oft-repeated claim that the
refuge will produce 16 billion barrels of oil is simply inaccurate, and
I share this quote: ``Big oil companies go where there are substantial
fields and where they can produce oil economically,'' said Ronald
Chappell, a spokesman for BP Alaska, which officially supports the
area and drilling. He continued: ``Does ANWR have that? Who knows?''

That is the conclusion of the company; not 16. Who knows?
The article continues: There is still a fair amount of exploration
risk here. You could go through 8 years of litigation, a good amount of
investment, and still come up with dry holes or uneconomic discoveries,
said Jerry Kepes, the managing director for exploration and production
issues at the Petroleum Finance Company, which is a Washington
consulting firm for oil companies. Quote: It is not clear that this is
quite the bonanza that some have said.
So we have to weigh, do we take this not quite so clear bonanza and
destroy an Arctic wildlife refuge, for which some people have
disrespect but, as I will show, I think is a concept that captures the
imagination of many Americans and is worth preserving.
This article says a great deal about how little oil might be in the
refuge, and it stands in stark contrast to some of the claims we have
heard in the press and in the Senate about the 16 billion. An article
in the Washington Post examines some of the competing claims over the
refuge oil potential. It said as follows:

How much oil is out there? No one knows for sure. But the
environmental movement's favorite statistic is a USGS
estimate that the Coastal Plain contains 3.2 billion barrels

[[Page S2772]]

of economically recoverable oil at the current price of $20
per barrel, about what the Nation uses in 6 months.

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

The relevant agencies of our government and the industry itself have
said this 10-year figure is about the average; maybe 7 to 10, but they
bank on about 10. The Energy Information Administration says 7 to 10
years. The Congressional Research Service says 10 years. The industry's
own economic analysis produced by WEFA Economic Forecasters, which I
should add is wildly optimistic about every aspect of oil drilling,
predicts it will take 10 years for the oil to begin flowing. That is
from the group that produced most of the studies on which they rely.
They say 10 years.
Asked in a Senate hearing how long it will take, the president of the
exploration of production for ExxonMobile said:

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

Let's end these arguments that this is the cure to the Middle East
crisis today, or that this is somehow going to prevent a young American
man or woman in uniform from having to go over and defend an oilfield
next year, the year after, or the year after that. The United States,
even if we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is still so
dependent on foreign oil now, until we change our overall energy mix,
America's youth will be at risk to protect America's dependency.
We have heard a lot of talk about jobs, how many jobs will be
created, what this will do. We have even heard that the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge drilling is the solution in place of the stimulus or part of the
stimulus during the course of last year, and it will produce an
immediate impact. It is interesting to note Secretary of the Interior
Gale Norton has been sent around to a bunch of press events in
Missouri, Arkansas, Indiana, and New York as a representative of the
Federal Government--incidentally, the agency charged with managing our
public lands--and she has been promising the drilling of the Arctic
Wildlife Refuge creates 700,000 jobs across the Nation. Secretary
Norton's tour, No. 1, is a political tour, not the management of our
lands. And oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge does not create 700,000
jobs. That claim comes directly from a study that has been universally
discredited. It is a bogus study.
First of all, the 700,000 job claim is for 1 year in about 2015. Yet
you never hear the Bush administration mention that. Not only is the
700,000 number a wild exaggeration, but it doesn't represent the
startup and decrease with respect to jobs in this particular effort.
Moreover--and here is the most important thing, much more important
than anything else with respect to the study--the claim is based on a
12-year-old study produced by WEFA Economic Forecasters, paid for by
the American Petroleum Institute. According to that API study--this is
their study--drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge produces zero jobs
for the next 4 years; zero jobs according to their own analysis.
There is a choice. We can invest in the pipeline for natural gas
which could immediately produce jobs, or we could drill immediately in
other areas where we know we already have permitting and the ability to
drill. That would be a more immediate job production than this. It is
interesting, you would have to wait until 2007 for the jobs to be
produced.
I highlight a couple of the technical inaccuracies of this study
which has been thrown around so much. The Center for Economic Policy
and Research assessed that study and made the following points.

No. 1, according to Energy Information Agency estimates, the API
study overstates oil production in the refuge by a factor of 3.
Adjusting the projections to keep them in line with the EIA estimates
reduces predicted job creation by more than 60 percent. The API study
assumes other oil producers, especially OPEC, do little to increase
production and bolster oil prices. Adjusting other production to keep
them in line with conventional estimates reduces the job creation by
another 40 percent. The API study assumes the economy will be far more
affected by a drop in oil prices than is reasonable to expect and
substituting a more reasonable estimate lowers the projection by about
75 percent.
As I have said, that study was written 10 years ago. So we can test
some of the assumption and predictions easily. The study was based on
oil costing more than $45 per barrel in the year 2000. Let me repeat:
Here is a study that they are still using, they still come to the floor
to say creates a lot of jobs, that, in fact, predicted a price of oil
double what the price of oil is today, which increases the recoverable
oil and changes the entire economics. Oil back then was $25 per barrel.
Here is another example. The study assumes that when Arctic oil
flows, the world market for oil will be 55 million barrels per day. The
world market today is already more than 70 million barrels a day, and
it will be much higher by the time the production occurs. When the
wrong and, frankly, stretched assumptions are corrected in the API
study, the job estimates fall to 50,000 nationally. To put this in
perspective, that is fewer jobs than what our economy generated in an
average week over the years 1997 through the year 2000. That is what
our economy is capable of doing in any week if our economy is moving in
the right direction.

[[Page S2773]]

I will read from an Associated Press article published in March a
remarkable story that shows that while President Bush's Cabinet
Secretary, Gale Norton, tours the Nation promising America 700,000
jobs, the people who supported the API study are distancing themselves
from it because it is faulty. Here is what the article reports:

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

And he has been involved in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge drilling
debate.
The Congressional Research Service has looked at this question and
assessed how many jobs might be created from drilling in the Arctic
Wildlife Refuge. Its report also casts doubt on the API study. CRS said
the following.
First, if the economy is operating at full employment, jobs created
by drilling in the refuge would come at the expense of an equal number
of jobs in the rest of the economy. In other words, if we pull this
economy out of recession and get ourselves to full employment, drilling
is not going to create any additional jobs.
That is the Congressional Research Service; it is not me. I am
quoting the Congressional Research Service.
Second, job creation from drilling in the Arctic Refuge may be as
little as 8 percent of API's claims. The Congressional Research service
gives a range of between 60,000 and 130,000 jobs. Again, when the
economy was expanding in recent years, it created that many jobs in 3
weeks.
Third, should oil prices drop, which CRS describes as uncertain, any
employment gain from that drop would be offset by harm to oil producers
not operating in the refuge, who would then conceivably reduce their
operations and workforce, impacting suppliers and local economies in
other ways.
Let me turn to a question of price. Jobs is not the only expanded,
exaggerated component of the argument. Another is the question of how,
if we develop in the refuge, we will lower the price of oil and
gasoline, heating fuel, diesel, all the products we produce from oil.
When we examine the facts which I went through a bit earlier, the fact
is, the price of oil now is not going to be affected by what happens in
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because, as we have seen, you have to be,
first of all, certain about the amount of oil it will produce; and,
secondly, there are three different assumptions to make about the oil
from the refuge. You could use the exaggerated peak production, you can
use the 1 million barrels a day you hear about from the President and
from other supporters, or you could use the mean production, which is
about 660,000 barrels for 1 year, in the year 2020, or you could use an
average production over the life of the refuge, which is about 360,000
barrels of oil.

I say the reason we might use any of these is that none of them, even
the overblown 1 million barrels a day, will have any impact on oil
prices whatsoever. Use any one you want, it does not matter, because
the bottom line is that you cannot affect the price even on the day of
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge's largest production of oil. Here is why.
Central to the idea that the refuge will lower oil prices is the
notion that the United States of America, in our production, drives oil
prices. It does not, and it will not. It cannot. The price of oil is
set in the global market. According to the Energy Information
Administration, the world market for oil in 2020 will consume 119
million barrels per day. Refuge oil, for that single peak year of 2020,
would amount to between .25 and 1.17 percent of the entire global
consumption. That is simply not enough, under economic models of
anybody anywhere. No economic model would suggest that .25 to 1.17
percent of the total production has the ability to affect that global
oil price. The fact is that the average production, probably at around
360,000 barrels, is much less than peak production, and we all know
that is not going to have the ability to affect the price. So this
argument is incorrect.
What about independence from imported oil? I talked about that. I do
not want to repeat all of that now. But the bottom line is there is not
one single day in which the Arctic Wildlife Refuge production will
replace Saudi imports. It just doesn't amount to that. These are not my
numbers, these are the numbers that come from the Congressional
Research Service.
I should point out the technical estimate is not a likely outcome. It
is not the economic estimate. I use it to make the point that using
only the highly optimistic, greatest potential, you still do not have
the ability to affect the total of the Saudi imports.
The false promises go way beyond Saudi Arabia. As we have heard them
say over and over again, ANWR will ensure energy independence; it will
reduce our dependence on imported oil. Nothing we have heard has
revealed anything except that promise is completely inflated and
unrealistic because of the relationship of the amount of oil there to
the global supply.
The report from the Energy Information Administration was requested
by Senator Murkowski. This report, requested by Senator Murkowski, says
if you accept the EIA's reference case for oil imports and the mean
estimate for refuge oil production that is the most likely outcome, oil
imports will drop from 62 percent to 60 percent for 1 year, about 2020.
Every other year, imports will be higher. This is, again, the Energy
Information Administration in response to Senator Murkowski.
So the President of the United States and other proponents have told
America they have a plan for the Nation, a plan to ensure energy
independence, to protect our national security. They back up the plan
with a lot of talk about national security. They have insisted we
attach ANWR to the Department of Defense authorization bill last year
because it was an urgent matter of national security. They hold press
events with big pictures of Saddam Hussein. When two servicemen died in
duty to our Nation, they suggested it was about the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge and that was related because we do not drill in the Arctic
Wildlife Refuge.
Their plan, this master plan that will ensure energy independence, is
simply without validity. Under no economic model whatsoever, under no
supply and demand curve, no way whatsoever can 3 percent supply the
needs of 25 percent and growing. It just does not happen. So we need to
vote accordingly here in the Senate.

The fact is that 20 years from now, we will import 60 to 62 percent
of our oil from foreign countries. Nothing we do, absent inventing
alternatives, is going to diminish that. If we drill in the Arctic
Refuge, we are not going to stop importing oil from Saudi Arabia.
Nobody suggests that. We are not going to stop importing it from any of
these other nations we are concerned about ultimately.
So I think it is clear that the flow of money to terrorists is not
going to stop. If we drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, it is not
going to suddenly make peace in the Middle East. If we drill in the
Arctic, our forces are not suddenly going to come home. There is going
to be no change in deployment; There will be no change in what we may
have to do with respect to Saddam Hussein, which we ought to do anyway,
regardless what happens in the ANWR.
Will a single soldier, marine, or sailor today in harm's way come
home if we make a decision to drill? The answer is no. We should not.
We should terminate this notion that somehow fools people that that is,
indeed, what is at stake here.
I want to correct one thing I said a moment ago. The CAFE standards
would not begin immediately. Earlier I misspoke when I said that. The
CAFE standards take some time to ramp up and take effect. But had we
put that into effect in 1990, we would today, in the year 2002, be
saving 1 million barrels of oil per day, which is close to the amount
we import from Iraq. That represents the Iraq figure.
I have spoken almost entirely about energy policy. It is my own
belief that this is sort of the critical moment in the life of the
United States, in our lives, to make a choice about our future. Are we
going to just kind of keep going down the road where we pretend to
ourselves that just drilling for oil is the solution? Or do we begin to
force the transition?
In the 1930s, many parts of America did not get electricity. They
could not

[[Page S2774]]

get it. But Roosevelt and others decided it was critical for the
development of our Nation, for our Nation's future economy, and for our
well-being, for kids to be able to have schools with lights, to have
power and so forth in their homes--that we got that electricity out
into the rural and poor communities. So what did we do? The Federal
Government spent several billion dollars to subsidize, to make sure we
put that electricity out.
In the same way, the Government must today make a decision about the
well-being of our country. Are we better off continuing down a road
where we already know we have oil we can drill in Alaska and the North
Slope? I have described how much we are drilling, how much has been
leased and put out for lease already. We already know we have 7,000
leases in the Gulf of Mexico. We can go down there and continue that
process. But are we going to make the decision as a country to begin to
embrace a future that is a different mix of fuels for transportation
and begin to legitimately end our dependence on foreign oil?
The only way to change our dependence on foreign oil is to change the
way we propel our motor vehicles. Transportation consumes 70 percent of
the oil we use. I said this at the outset, and I want to repeat these
principles. Not one of these choices we make for our energy future
should be done if it doesn't make economic sense. We do not have to
lower the quality of life for Americans. We have to recognize we are
going to drill for 30 to 50 years and we have the places we can do
that. Finally, most of the gains in the near term, in terms of fuel use
and our dependency, are going to come from efficiencies in the current
regime. Those efficiencies come from hybrids, new technologies,
alternatives, renewables, et cetera.

Those are the principles that must guide us. But I do not want to
leave out what I think is a critical component of this argument that
should not be diminished. It does not deserve to be derided in the way
it has been derided by some of our colleagues, with respect to what
this refuge means in terms of the environment.
Some who want to industrialize the Arctic Refuge call it a barren
wasteland. It has been described as hell. It has been described in many
different ways, but I think those descriptions reveal more about a
point of view and the value than it does about the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge.
There are those on the opposite side of this debate who may look at
the refuge and only see beauty in an oil rig, and they may only see the
foregone profit of conservation. But those views do not reflect the
science, and I don't believe they reflect the best instincts of
Americans.
Let me read some of the more objective descriptions of ANWR's
environmental value to America today and to future generations. The
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the great untouched lands
remaining in America and on the northern continent. Its ecological
value is unlike any other in the Nation and in the world.

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

Let me repeat that the Fish and Wildlife Service is not a radical
environmental group. Frankly, I am tired of people who refer to this
sort of radical environmental component when our own agencies--the Fish
and Wildlife Service and Interior--are telling us, don't disturb this.
This is what the Fish and Wildlife Service says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congressman Morris Udall said,

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

President Jimmy Carter has written,

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

We have heard that drilling will not take place on the entire Refuge.
Rather it will take place only on the refuge's coastal plain, the so-
called 1002 Area. So I want to talk some about the 1002

[[Page S2775]]

Area and why it should be protected. It is not a complicated issue. The
coastal plain is a special place even within the environmental treasure
of the refuge, and it is the place where oil exploration is likely to
do the most damage to the Refuge.

The Department of Interior found in 1987 that the

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

The Fish and Wildlife Service has said that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The statement continues:

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

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

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

Based on studies in existing areas of oil development in the North
Slope, they believe petroleum development on the Arctic Wildlife Refuge
would inevitably result in loss of wildlife habitat and probable
declines in some wildlife populations.
Many times throughout this debate, people have pointed to the
development of the central and western portions of Alaska's North
Slope, particularly Prudhoe Bay. They say this proves that the oil
companies can develop the refuge without harming the

[[Page S2776]]

environment. Well, no one is going to dispute that wilderness goes on
forever in every place. But you cannot put an oil drilling complex in a
wilderness area and call it wilderness. You just can't do it. You are
either going to decide you are going to have some area set aside as
pristine wilderness or you are not. That is part of what this debate is
about, in conjunction with the question of timing.
Maybe in the United States of America, somewhere down the road, our
backs will be up against the wall, and maybe we will not have made good
economic decisions, maybe we will not have developed the technologies
we need. Maybe somewhere down the line other nations all gang up, and
they will not supply us, and the United States may be stuck in a
position, and this tiny bit of oil will make a difference, and the
United States at that point might decide it wants to make that choice.
But there is nothing in the economics, there is nothing in the
current global situation, there is nothing in the amount of oil that
can be found, there is nothing in the economically recoverable oil that
suggests that that kind of difference is worth this choice at this
time, particularly when there is so much in the way of oil alternatives
in the Gulf of Mexico, natural gas alternatives, and continued drilling
in Prudhoe Bay, the North Slope area.
But the record of Prudhoe Bay itself is not quite as pristine as they
want to suggest it is. Oil development on the North Slope has resulted
in 500 miles of roads, more than 1,100 miles of pipelines, thousands of
acres of facilities spread out over 1,000 square miles, 3,800
exploratory wells, 170 exploratory drill and drill pads, 22 gravel
mines, 25 processing plants for oil, gas, and seawater, 56,000 tons of
nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog and acid rain, which is twice
as much as is emitted by the city of Washington, DC. Our Nation's
Capital emits less global warming gas than drilling in Prudhoe Bay.

Nearly 400 spills occur annually on the North Slope's oilfields;
roughly 40 toxic substances, ranging from waste oil to acids, have been
spilled. As much as 6 billion gallons of drilling waste have been
dumped in 450 reserves pits. Three class I injection wells have been
constructed and injected with more than 325 million gallons of waste.
Thirty class II injection wells have been constructed and injected with
more than 40 billion gallons of waste.
Several experts have examined the impacts of oil development in
Prudhoe Bay on the environment and what it might mean for the oil
development of the Arctic Refuge. Again, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service says:

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

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

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

The Wildlife Society, the Alaska chapter, believes that ``petroleum
exploration and development are not warranted on the Coastal Plain of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,'' which they have deemed, as I
mentioned earlier, a critical area for the abundance and diversity of
wildlife.
We also need to look at the issue of compliance. This is particularly
true when oil production starts to decline, as it will. There is a
curve here. Let me share it with you. I have the chart in the
cloakroom. Maybe we can get it in a minute.

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

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

The story continues:

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

[[Page S2777]]

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

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

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

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

Let me close by saying I have made it clear in my comments that those
of us who oppose the Arctic Wildlife Refuge do not oppose drilling.
We embrace drilling in many parts of our country as an ongoing need
for 30 to 50 years of this country's future. We will remain oil
dependent, despite even our best efforts, if we were to make our best
efforts. I have suggested that we need an organizing principle for our
energy future that does what makes economic sense. We should not make
choices that don't make economic sense, and we do not have to lower the
quality of life of any American.
We heard debate on the floor of the Senate a few weeks ago about what
kind of cars people were going to be ``forced'' to drive. No American
is ever going to be forced to drive any kind of car if we do what we
need to do with respect to the future. If you want to drive a big SUV
or a huge truck to take your kids to soccer games, go ahead,
absolutely. I think most soccer moms in America are outraged that cars
get as little mileage for the gasoline as they do. They would love to
pay less when going to the gas station to fill up.
All of that technology is available to us to allow people to drive
the car of their choice that is more efficient. There are many choices
available to us. We can drill in those 7,000 leases in the deepwater
drilling of the Gulf of Mexico. I have gone through the long list of
the Arctic leases that were available that were put out last year. The
largest oil and gasoline lease in the history of our Nation, just over
a year ago, was 950,000 acres on the North Slope. They have scheduled
15 oil and gas leases on 15 million acres now. The third lease sale of
a planning area of 10 million acres is coming right down the road.
We don't need to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and destroy the
concept of a pristine refuge in order to accomplish our goals of, in
fact, being independent or improving the national security of our
country. That is really the choice here, for all of us in the Senate:
Whether we will respect this concept until we find 15, 20, 30 years
from now that we leaders of the country have not made wise choices with
respect to the alternatives and renewables, alternative means of
propelling our automobiles.
I was just out at the National Energy Alternative Renewable Energy
Lab in Colorado meeting with Admiral Truly. They are doing
extraordinary work. They say if the United States were to put in more
effort and ratchet up our research on alternative propulsion,
alternative heating, and other mechanisms, we could significantly
advance the curve in this country.
We have not been serious about that. The only thing we appear to be
serious about thus far is continuing the dependency that has put us
into this problem in the first place.
So I hope my colleagues will take advantage of this vote, which
represents an opportunity to suggest that our value system in this
country, and our sense of economics, and our sense of security are
well-grounded and well-placed with respect to the Arctic Wildlife
Refuge.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Alaska is
recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to
the Senator from Massachusetts. He is a friend. I have visited his home
and I have great love for his wife. I find it very interesting that the
Senator from Massachusetts has discussed about every other creature of
the world but has never talked about the people of the Arctic Slope. He
never talked about the Eskimo. In fact, despite repeated requests to go
to the area, he has never been there. He has never been there. As a
concept, I find it hard to understand my friend's continued reference
to the ``wilderness area'' and drilling in a ``wilderness area.''
The 1\1/2\ million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain is not a
wilderness area and was never designated as a wilderness area. Drilling
there would not be drilling in a wilderness area. It is unfortunate
that the Senator, and others, continue to say that because it
represents a breach of faith.
Paul Tsongas, in fact, did offer four amendments to the 1980 act. One
of them he withdrew. It was on the Coastal Plain. There was a
compromise on the Coastal Plain. I, too, am sad that Senator Paul
Tsongas and Senator Scoop Jackson are not here because, were they here,
they would say a deal is a deal.
We passed out the letter that Senator Jackson authored with Senator
Hatfield, which is on every Senator's desk, which says:

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

That is the letter signed by Senators Jackson and Hatfield in 1980.
Fair is fair. I will talk about the senatorial courtesies and the
prerogatives of the past. Right now I want to answer my friend. At one
time during his comments he said British Petroleum does not seek to
explore in ANWR. Am I hearing right? There has been no such
announcement by British Petroleum. It is one of the major producing
entities in the North Slope now and, as far as I know, it has never
been the concept of seeking the right to proceed with the commitment to
explore the 1\1/2\ million acres covered by the section 1002 in the
1980 act.
The Senator talked about jobs. That is wonderful. We like that. The
Senator talked about drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and he wants to
develop the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska. He has had that
opportunity since he has been in the Senate. Nobody has proceeded at
all with that. We have tried to get that done. We have not been able to
do it. It is like the rest of Alaska. People say it is wilderness
because it is undeveloped. It is not wilderness in the legal sense,
unless it is classified as ``wilderness.''
So far as I know, it is not possible for that statement to be made on
the floor of the Senate--that we would drill in wilderness if we were
to drill in the 1002 area of the Arctic Coastal Plain.
The Senator from Massachusetts belabored, I think, the CAFE standards
concept. It would be three times the savings, he says, of ANWR. Well,
ANWR doesn't persist in savings; ANWR is production. Beyond that, CAFE
standards deal with gasoline. We are dealing with oil. Mr. President,
44 percent of a barrel of oil becomes gasoline; 56 percent is refined
for other products. You can have all the CAFE standards you want. If
you want the other products, you have to refine a barrel of oil. There
is too much talk here about gasoline being oil. One time the Senator
from Massachusetts said 70 percent of the oil goes into transportation.
That is not so at all. Maybe 70 percent of the gasoline goes into
transportation, but it is not oil. In fact, the bulk of the oil goes
for a lot of things, including home fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, and
lubricants. I wonder how far our aircraft would fly if we stopped
refining a barrel of oil to get jet fuel. You would still have the part
of the barrel that would make gasoline.

I remind those who are looking at this chart that these are items
made from oil--from toothpaste to deodorants, footballs, lifejackets,
pantyhose, lipstick, dentures, and they all come from a barrel of oil.
Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I did not interrupt the Senator.
Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator want to have a dialog?
Mr. STEVENS. I will have a dialog when the time comes.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.
Mr. STEVENS. A real problem is the people who really take advantage
of the Nation when we are evenly divided,

[[Page S2778]]

the minority of the population--2 percent--which represents these
radical environmentalists. The Democratic Party sees fit to seek to win
elections by preventing us from proceeding with the prospect of
discovering oil on the Arctic Plain, but it has not been a traditional
position of that party because, obviously, the two people who reserved
this area were, in fact, Democratic Senators--Senator Jackson and
Senator Tsongas. They were Democratic Senators. They entered into a
commitment with us that this area would be explored, and if it proved
to be not a situation where irreparable harm would occur on the Arctic
Plain, this area would then be faced with a request from the President
and the Secretary of the Interior to proceed with oil and gas leasing.
Oil and gas leasing is prohibited at the present time. We know that.
It is prohibited by law. The 1980 act prohibited oil and gas leasing in
this area until the procedure is followed. This is the procedure. It
has taken us 21 years to get to this point.
This is the ``Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain Resource
Assessment Recommendation to Congress and Legislative Environmental
Impact Statement'' required by the law of 1980. It demonstrates that
there would be no irreparable harm to this area if oil and gas leasing
would proceed.
I have some real problems with what is going on here. I want to talk
about them at length later. I understand the Senator from Texas wishes
to speak, so I will be glad to yield to her when she is ready.
These people, the Eskimos, the Inupiats who live on the North Slope,
seek this decision by Congress. They want this area to be explored.
Their schools, their roads, and their future depend upon jobs. This is
their area. They believe it can be done safely. They even own some of
the land up there.
Mr. President, did you know they are prohibited from drilling on
their own land, land they received from the Federal Government in
settlement of their claims? There is no question--no question--that
these people want to proceed.
The Senator was referring to this land as wilderness. Those people
live right there. This is the village that is within what the Senator
from Massachusetts calls wilderness. This is not wilderness. This is
the home of the Inupiat people, the Eskimo people of Alaska.
There are some Alaska Natives who live on the South Slope who really
are part of the Canadian Indian nation known as Gwich'ins. They oppose
this. We know that. They are probably up in the galleries now. They
oppose it, but the Alaska Eskimos do not oppose it. They live there,
and they want this development. They want to see it developed.
The first time I went up to the North Slope, it was a very sad visit.
It was back in the fifties. I tell you, they had a very small runway.
Wiley Post crashed just north of there. We landed at this little
village in which the people lived in terrible circumstances and
conditions. They had no modern conveniences at all. I invite you to go
up and take a look at Barrow--five-, six-, eight-story buildings with
elevators, beautiful schools, a wonderful airport, tremendous people
enjoying their lifestyle. They like the Arctic. That is their home.
They like their opportunities now to have their feet in both the
present and the past. They are wonderful people. They make tremendous
citizens of the United States, and there is no question they want to
proceed.
I have a letter that went to Senators Daschle and Lott in April of
this year from the Kaktovic Inupiat. This is a photograph of some of
their children. They say they want the promises given to them. They
want this area open. They are the only residents of the 19.6 million
acres that were recognized within the boundaries of that refuge. They
own some of the land. They own 92,160 acres of the land, and they are
currently prohibited by the Federal Government from drilling on their
land because of the situation in the 1002 area.
They were told to wait until the approval was given by Congress to
proceed in the whole area. They seek--and I hope before we are through,
we will recognize their request--to use their own lands to determine
whether or not beneath those lands there are oil and gas resources.
That is another matter we will go into.
They say:

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

That is denied now by the opposition of the majority party to this
amendment that is before us.
We believe this will be the largest oilfield on the North American
Continent, somewhere in excess of 40 billion barrels of oil. We do not
build paved roads; we build ice roads in these areas. It is true that
on State lands, where Prudhoe Bay was discovered--those are State
lands--they are subject to the construction of roads by the permission
of the State of Alaska. It is an entirely different situation than
being within the 1002 area which is subject to total control by the
Federal Government.
The House has already limited the use of this 1002 area, 1.5 million
acres, to 2,000 acres of surface--2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres.
That is what we are being denied the right to use.
I do believe it is unfortunate that we have the concepts now of so
many people who enjoy life and make so many studies from afar. They are
making studies from all of these scientific organizations that are
supported by these environmental organizations. I am going to talk
about those later, Mr. President. I see two other Senators are in the
Chamber.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be pleased to follow the Senator
from Texas. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the Senator from
Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, with the understanding I may resume the
floor later this afternoon, I will yield the floor to these Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator from Texas will speak, and then the
Senator from Minnesota follows; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska. In
fact, I thank both Senators from Alaska for leading this very long
fight to open up a very small portion of their State for the purpose of
exploring and drilling to make America more stable in this crisis in
which we find ourselves.
I want to go back over what is in the Murkowski-Breaux amendment
because I think if you listen to some of the debate, you will be
confused.
First, the key provision is a provision I put in this amendment early
on that says the President must find that it is in our national
economic and security interest to drill in ANWR. The President must
consider the impact on increasing the independence we would have on
foreign imports for our basic energy needs in this country.
This amendment limits the size of production to 2,000 acres, and in
that 2,000 acres it is confined to a part of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge that is plain. There are no trees and wilderness in
this part of ANWR. We are talking about drilling on 2,000 acres in an
area the size of the State of South Carolina, where there are no trees
whatsoever.
In addition, I think it is important to note that we have limited in
this amendment when they can drill. They can drill between November and
May, when the land is frozen. There would be ice roads and ice runways.
The footprint on the land would be minimal to none because they would
be using the ice roads rather than driving on the land.
In addition to that, the caribou, which is an animal that mates
throughout the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, mates during the
summertime. There would be no drilling in the summertime. Any argument
that this might in some way disrupt caribou mating is not a valid
argument at all.
There would be 1.5 million more acres of real wilderness that would
be designated as wilderness where they could not drill--this is in
addition to ANWR in exchange for opening this nonwilderness area of the
Coastal Plain.

[[Page S2779]]

It is a balanced amendment. The environment is protected. It is very
important that we look at the environmental safeguards America would
put on drilling in ANWR to assure that we will have environmental
standards.
This same reserve may well be drilled in Russia which is very close
to Alaska, as we all know. About 20 miles separates them at their
closest point.
They could drill right across the coast from Alaska, and we do not
know what their environmental safeguards would be. We certainly would
not have control over them, and that would affect the Alaska coastline
even more because we would not have control of the way Russia might
decide to drill. They might not decide to drill only in the winter.
They might not decide to put any limitations on the kinds of ships that
would come in and out of the water. I think that maintaining control is
the better environmental argument.
ANWR would produce at least a million barrels a day. That is about
the amount we import from Iraq every day. The percentage of the U.S.
oil needs that would be met by ANWR is nearly 5 percent. We consume 20
million barrels of oil a day. We import 12 million of those barrels. We
are right at 60 percent of our needs every day having to be met by
imports. Our ANWR production would make up for 8 to 10 percent of our
current imports.
I heard the Senator from Massachusetts say this is going to be a drop
in the bucket for our energy needs; that this really gets us nowhere.
So why would we do it?
We would do it because we need to do everything we can to maintain
our own stability and to look to ourselves for our economic and
security needs. I would rather be looking at American jobs with
American resources, American production and American control than to
say 60 percent imports for our needs is OK. I especially think that the
argument falls flat when we realize that the 60 percent includes some
of America's known worst enemies, such as Iraq. Iraq has threatened
America before; so have some of the other countries from whom we import
oil. Then there are countries with whom we have great friendships, such
as Venezuela. They also send us about a million barrels a day but they
are in upheaval. There are strikes and the government is in a very
precarious situation. So while we would certainly count Venezuela as a
friend, they are not as reliable right now as we need to have.
I think we need to look at this whole ANWR issue in light of the
circumstances. I have always felt that America needed an energy policy
that depended on our own resources. Today, it is no longer an option.
It is no longer a matter of good public policy; it is a necessity. It
is a matter of national security that we control our own economy.
If countries, that would do us harm, could say ``we will stop
exporting oil to America and shut down their factories, keep them from
being able to drive to work, shoot the prices so high the airline
industry starts to crater,'' then are we not going to beat them from
within? Maybe we do not have to beat them from without because if their
economy starts sinking we are going to win. Of course, they are right.
If we allow that to happen, we are not responsible stewards of our
country.
Iraq has, in fact, said they are going to stop exporting oil that
could come to America. With Iraq using this as a weapon, and other
countries possibly doing the same, or deciding that perhaps they cannot
export any more because of their internal situations, then what are we
going to do if we have not planned ahead?
The Senator from Massachusetts says we should conserve our way out of
the crisis, but let's look at that. The 10 most fuel-efficient
automobiles in America make up 1.5 percent of the automobile sales in
America. In America, we have long distances to drive. In America,
people have big families, and we know a heavier car is safer than a
small car. So it would seem the Senator from Massachusetts would demand
that people have only the choice of an unsafe car, that is not the one
they want for their families, as a way to become more stable in our
economy.

I fundamentally disagree with him that this is the right approach. I
think we need to look to our own resources as part of a balanced
package that would keep our country strong.
I think we should have incentives for more fuel-efficient
automobiles, so that if people make that choice of their own free will,
and if that meets their family's needs, they would be able to do that
and maybe even get a tax credit for it. I think we need to look for
alternative forms of energy. I think we have walked away from nuclear
powerplants, which are known to be the most clean and effective ways to
produce electricity. I think there are new things we will be able to
find in the future, such as ethanol, hopefully, becoming more
reasonably priced; other forms of wind energy that certainly could
produce electricity, not in the great amounts we need at this time, but
I think Americans are ingenious and we will find other sources. But
that should not be all we need to do.
We need to have a balanced plan that also allows us to produce the
amount of energy we would need to keep our country strong. The major
sources of oil in this country are ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. We are
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, but we have not yet found the
technology to go as deep as we would need to go in parts of the Gulf of
Mexico to tap the added resources that might be available there. We do
however certainly have the capability to look to that resource as well.
In the Senate bill, we do not try to help get the Gulf of Mexico oil.
No. The House bill allows us to continue the royalty help that we give
for deep drilling in the Gulf because it is more expensive and takes
more research and exploration.
Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana passed a royalty relief bill
that takes the first part of oil royalties from deep well drilling in
the Gulf. It abates those royalties in order to create an incentive for
companies to add that expense of drilling in that deep Gulf area. That
credit lapsed and is no longer in effect. The House energy bill puts
that back in play.
We should do that. That is a valid incentive because it would produce
more oil in the Gulf.
In the Senate bill, there is very little about production, aside from
the marginal well tax credits which were my in bill. I have fought for
the marginal well tax credits for a long time. I am pleased that they
are in the bill because the marginal well tax credits could help the
marginal, small, little bitty wells to give them a floor so that anyone
willing to go in and tap a site, that would produce only 15 barrels a
day or less, would be able to withstand the falling prices. A number of
those small wells were closed when oil was $11 a barrel a couple of
years ago and they haven't been reopened because of the instability of
the prices.

If all the small wells are drilled and producing, we do have that
credit in this bill which will equal the amount we import from Saudi
Arabia. It is a significant amount. It takes 500,000 wells to do it.
These are generally small businesspeople. That is good.
Other than that, there is nothing in this bill that speaks to
production. The House bill has the incentives for deep Gulf drilling,
which I think is very important and I certainly hope will come out of
the conference report if we can pass the bill before the Senate.
The House has ANWR, which the Senate does not, and about which we are
fighting and talking today. ANWR is a significant addition to our own
national stability. The ability to control our destiny rests in ANWR
and deep Gulf drilling. When you put those together with increasing
nuclear capabilities, clean coal burning, wind, and other forms of
renewables, a balanced package of conservation and production includes
ANWR and the deep Gulf incentives.
As we debate this, I hope some of our Members, who have said they are
very concerned about drilling in ANWR, will look at the facts: ANWR has
no trees in the part we will drill, it would only be done in the winter
when you use ice roads and ice runways so there is no footprint on the
land, where it would not hurt the environment, but, in fact, would be
severely restricted by environmental concerns.
If we are going to have affordable, reliable, and clean energy, we
must have a balanced package. Not to pass a bill that gives the amount
we import from Iraq and Saudi Arabia and Venezuela is hardly worth the
effort because it

[[Page S2780]]

wouldn't give enough stability to control our own destiny.
It is essential we pass a bill that allows America to control our
economy and will produce American jobs. We are talking hundreds of
thousands of jobs. That, in itself, helps stabilize our economy. That
is why the Teamsters Union and the building and trade unions have been
so helpful in this effort. I have never seen a union so committed and
so sincere and work so hard as the Teamsters to try to keep these jobs
in America. We have lost many jobs, thousands of jobs, since September
11.
These are good-paying jobs that would become available if we drill in
ANWR and in the deep Gulf--not only the jobs on the rigs themselves,
but all of the companies that produce the pipe, all of the companies
that produce the oil-well supplies.
It would be a huge boost to our economy. However, most importantly,
it would stabilize our economy from oil price spikes that will hurt our
airline industry, that will hurt our factories, that will hurt
profitability and start causing more layoffs if we do not get control.
I thank my colleagues for finally allowing this amendment to come
forward. It is our responsibility to pass this amendment for the
limited exploration in ANWR with the environmental safeguards and with
the very specific times that assure we would not have a footprint on
the land. This is our responsibility. It is a national security issue.
It is an economic issue. If we don't look out for America, who will?
This is the Senate of America and we must look out for the people, for
the jobs, for the security of our country. That is what we have been
elected to do. It is our job and it is time to step up to the plate and
do the right thing for the people who have put their trust in us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I have spoken with the two managers of the bill. I would
like to propound a unanimous consent request that Senator Wellstone be
recognized for 20 minutes, Senator Lieberman for 20 minutes, Senator
Bond for 20 minutes, and Senator Lott for 10 minutes, in that order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, when I first came to the Senate, my
first year here in 1991, I think with Senator Lieberman and Senator
Baucus, we started a filibuster against well drilling in ANWR. We
succeeded. I am proud to be part of this effort as well.
With all due respect, as I listen to some of my colleagues speak,
they make the case we need to do this for our own national security; we
need to do this for energy independence; we need to do it for our
consumers. I think it has precisely the opposite effect.
We are talking, altogether, the equivalent of what the United States
consumes for 6 months. We are talking about oil that is not recoverable
for another 10 years. And we are also talking about continuing to
barrel down this oil path, this fossil fuel path, which is destructive
to our environment.
I am an environmental Senator from the State of Minnesota. I am
concerned about global warming. In many ways, it is not our future.
There is a different future.
I come from a State, for example, a cold weather State at the other
end of the pipeline. When we import barrels of oil or MCFs of natural
gas, we export billions of dollars. Last year our energy bill was
between $10 and $11 billion, but we have wind, biodiesel and ethanol,
biomass electricity, saved energy, efficient energy use, and clean
technology and small business. There is another direction that we can
go. There is simply no reason to destroy a pristine wildlife refuge.
There is no reason to do this environmental damage.
One of the most moving meetings I ever had was with the Gwich'in
people who live on the land. They made the appeal to me as a Senator
out of their sense of environmental justice not to let this oil
drilling go forward.
This whole idea of energy independence for America, based upon
another idea that we drill our way to independence, makes no sense. The
United States of America has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, but
we use 25 percent of the world's supply. Saudi Arabia has 46 percent of
the world's supply.
On each point, I take my colleagues to task. I don't think we get
more energy independence from this. I don't think we get lower prices
for consumers. I don't think we do better for our environment. Frankly,
this proposal represents not a big step forward but a big leap
sideways, at best.
On the jobs count, we can go back and forth and back and forth.
Senator Kerry spoke; Senator Lieberman will speak. I know what the
American Petroleum Institute has said about the jobs. I also know when
we look at the Congressional Research Service, which we all look to as
an independent research organization, we are talking about 60,000 jobs.
If you move down another path where you are not so dependent on big
oil and where you really look at renewable energy and saved energy, it
is much more labor intensive, it is much more small business intensive.
It creates many more jobs, and it is much more respectful of the
environment. It keeps capital in our communities. That is the marriage
we ought to make here on the floor of the Senate. We don't need to be
doing the bidding of these big oil companies any longer.
In part 2 of my presentation--I will stay under 20 minutes because
there are many Senators who want to speak--I want to turn my attention
to a portion of this amendment, the second-degree amendment, which
purports to address the very serious problem of legacy costs of
steelworkers or, in my State, taconite workers--that is to say, people
who are retired and who are losing their health care benefits and their
insurance benefits.
We need to respond to this pain. I am a part of a real effort, a
bipartisan effort with Senator Rockefeller and Senator Specter, to deal
with legacy costs and to provide the help to people. This amendment on
this bill is not authentic. It is not a real effort. In many ways I
cannot think of an amendment I am more in opposition to because I
think, frankly, it takes advantage of the pain of people and the hopes
of people, it is an amendment that does not do the job.
Why in the world are we now being told on the floor of the Senate the
only way we can get relief to thousands of steelworker retirees around
the Nation, where their health benefits and their life insurance is in
jeopardy, is by tying it to what the oil industry wants to do in
Alaska? I would like to know who made that linkage, and how anyone can
argue that is the only way we can help steelworkers, retired
steelworkers, or, for that matter, whether or not this, in fact, is
even a real effort.
Let me explain. The amendment does not deliver on the promise.
Senators come out here and say the only way we can do this is from the
royalty from the oil drilling. The Senator from Alaska says the legacy
costs could be as high as $18 billion. I think the costs are about $14
billion over 10 years. Drilling in ANWR cannot produce those kinds of
Federal revenues. This amendment dedicates much of the ANWR revenue to
other purposes.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan CBO, less
than $1 billion of the revenue from ANWR is going to be available, in
this amendment, to pay for steelworker legacy costs over 10 years. In
other words, less than one-tenth of what the CBO says we need to cover
these legacy costs for steelworkers, for the taconite workers who are
the steelworkers in northern Minnesota--less than one-tenth of what we
need is covered by this amendment. And that presupposes the House
Republican leadership would sign onto it--they have not--and that this
administration would sign on to it. They have not.
So what we have here is a little bit of sleight of hand, where you
get oil drilling for ANWR in the House bill--it is in there--and in the
Senate bill. You get less than one-tenth of what we need for legacy
costs. That is all you get. But you do not have any prior agreement
from the House Republican leadership, and they take it out in
conference. You do not have any prior agreement from the White House.
They take it out in conference.
I have to tell you, this is in many ways this amendment tells a
horrible story. The steelworkers, hard-working people--the range has
seen tremendous

[[Page S2781]]

pain. LTV workers are out of work. This doesn't help people out of work
now who are also losing their health care benefits. But for retirees,
it says we can help you, but the only way is if you go along with what
the oil industry wants, and if you look at the fine print, you find out
this doesn't meet more than one-tenth of the cost.
Where is the commitment from the White House? Where is the commitment
from the Republican leadership? I tell you what, we will bring a bill
out to the floor which will cover legacy costs. Then all Senators get a
chance to vote on it. Then we can decide who wants to provide the help
to people.
By the way, it is also help to an industry that simply is not going
to be able to compete without our doing so.
I want to say, the second-degree amendment--it is so interesting. I
have another piece here. There actually will be no oil produced on
lease on the Coastal Plain which will be imported except to Israel.
There is even language of oil for Israel. Oil for Israel, legacy costs
for steelworkers--although not really. It is not real. But this seems
to me to represent the old politics where you are trying everything to
get the votes. You do not know what else to do so you start adding on
all these other amendments, and you think you can buy off this group of
people or buy off this vote or get this vote or get this vote.
I am a Senator from Minnesota. I want to make the final distinction
between a real effort and my position on ANWR so it is clear. I am
opposed to the oil drilling. I led a filibuster when I first came here.
I am opposed to it now. I will vote against oil drilling in ANWR,
period.
The second distinction, I am for a real effort to deal with the
legacy costs of retired steelworkers. We have to. I am working with a
bipartisan group of Senators who are equally committed.
If we want to talk about what kind of revenue we are going to need,
it is going to be, over 10 years, about $14 billion. There is less than
$1 billion revenues from actually ANWR revenues to cover the legacy
costs. That doesn't do the job.
The steelworkers know this and they have said so. We don't need to be
doing the bidding of the oil companies to help the steelworkers. We can
do that on our own. We can do that right here on the floor of the
Senate.
When we bring the legislation out, it will be a tough fight. I do not
know where the administration will be. Frankly, I think we need their
commitment first because if we do not get their commitment first, we
will never be able to provide it. It will be $14 billion over 10 years.
We have to do it for the industry, for this industry to have a chance,
an industry that is so important to the national security of our
country. This is a national security question. But we also have to do
it to make sure we get the help to people who have worked so hard all
their lives.
Where is the administration on this? I have not heard the
administration commit itself to anywhere close to the amount of revenue
we are going to need to cover legacy costs. The silence of the White
House on this question is deafening. The silence on the part of the
House Republican leadership is deafening. And the effort to have an
amendment attached onto this amendment which purports to help taconite
workers on the Iron Range but which really does not--as opposed to the
real effort and the real fight which we will make--troubles me.
There are too many people and too much pain. People are hurting. We
should not be playing around with this.
The second-degree amendment deserves to be defeated. The underlying
amendment deserves to be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote against
cloture, and I believe we will have a strong vote against cloture.
I yield the floor.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Minnesota for what is, for him, a characteristically truthful,
passionate, and in some senses, courageous statement. But it is typical
of his service here. I thank him and all the others of our colleagues
who have joined in this filibuster to stop the drilling for oil in the
Arctic Refuge.
I must say for myself, in the 13 years now that I have been in the
Senate, I cannot remember the last time I said I would participate or
proclaim to participate in the leadership of a filibuster. But I have
done that in this case because I remember what Senator Byrd instructed
us on some time ago--that the purpose of the filibuster, which is to
say the requirement for a supermajority to proceed with 60 votes, is to
prevent us from allowing the passions of the moment to sweep through
Congress and become law and do lasting damage to America's values and
interests.

If there ever was an example of how the temporary passions of a
moment, if responded to in law, could do permanent damage to our great
country, its values, and interests, quite literally, then this debate
over the drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is exactly
that.
I rise to oppose the amendments before us and oppose the motion for
cloture. This proposal has been before us for a long time. I remember
discussing it in my campaign for the Senate in 1988. It has risen and
fallen over the years, but the basic heart of it remains wrong. It is
to develop one of the most beautiful places in America, the Coastal
Plain of the Arctic Refuge, known as the American Serengeti, inhabited
by 135 species of birds and 45 species of land animals. The plain
crosses all five different ecoregions of the Arctic.
To take this magnificent, unspoiled piece of nature and develop it
for what? For a very small amount of oil no sooner than a decade from
now, which will not do what all of us say we want to do, which is to
break our dependence on foreign oil. And it will provide no price
relief to American consumers of gas and oil.
The fact remains that drilling in the refuge would not produce a drop
of oil for a decade--far beyond the time of the current crisis in the
Middle East which some have tried to use to gain support for this
proposal to drill; and, even then, after the decade, far too little to
change in any meaningful way our dependency on foreign oil.
Even if we did allow the drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge, this
administration's own Energy Department concluded that drilling in the
Arctic Refuge would only reduce our dependence on oil by 2 percent 20
years from now. That is in the year 2020 or thereabouts. We would
depend on foreign sources of oil for 60 percent of the oil we use
instead of 62 percent. Is that 2 percent worth destroying this
beautiful piece of America?
The fact is, even if the oil were coming out of ANWR, notwithstanding
suggestions to the contrary, it would be priced at world prices. So
there wouldn't be any relief given to America's consumers if we allowed
the drilling for oil. No, the only way for us to remove our economy
from the troubles in the Middle East that are going on now or that may
go on in years ahead is to end our dependence on foreign oil.
As my colleagues have said over and over again, we don't have much
oil left within American control and within America's land--3 percent
of the world's reserves of which we use 25 percent every year. It is
just not there. Therefore, if we want to break our dependence on
foreign oil, as mighty a nation as we are militarily and economically,
if we want to truly remain strong and invulnerable to pressure from
nations that are weaker than we are but have oil within their land,
then we have to break our addiction on oil. We have to develop new
sources of energy. We have to conserve more. We have to use the gifts
of ingenuity and technology that have created so many miracles in our
time to help us power our society and our economy in a way that is not
only cleaner than oil but, most important to the moment, is within our
control and our possession. Surely, we can do it.
As part of doing this, I say, as so many others who oppose drilling
for oil in the Arctic Refuge have said, we are not opposed to all
development of America's energy resources. Far from it. While we must
move beyond our dependence on fossil fuels, we cannot do it
immediately, requiring us to continue to pursue supplies of oil, and
particularly to pursue supplies of fuel. In fact, may I say as a
Democrat that I am proud that the Clinton administration actually
leased more land for energy development than either the Reagan or
previous Bush administrations.

But those decisions were evaluated, such as the decisions we shall
make

[[Page S2782]]

and should make in the future, which is to determine the environmental
impact of that exploration--to hold the test up. How much energy will
we get? What damage will it do to our environment? By that test, the
Arctic Refuge does not pass.
Let me show my colleagues a map of the North Slope of Alaska. Here is
this very small area of the Coastal Plain. That is what our colleagues
from Alaska want to be able to drill. Compare it to all the rest of
this that is now open and, in many cases, already leased for oil
exploration. This is a very small part of that area. There is very
active exploration and drilling going on in the rest.
We are not asking to take out every possibility of development in
enormous swaths of land. The fact is, companies have made promising new
discoveries at the locations in blue that I have just indicated. For
example, last winter Phillips announced major discoveries of three
significant oilfields in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The
oil companies have plans to drill up to 59 exploration wells over the
next 5 years. None of that is going to be affected by our desire to
stop these amendments, which aim to get into that last very special and
important area to preserve.
What about that small green section in the corner of the map that I
pointed to? The so-called 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge is the small
biological heart of the ecosystem. Again, we are not asking for the
entire North Slope to be protected. We only ask for the small piece of
land that serves as the most essential and vital habitat in the region.
Much to the contrary of what has been argued, the area is not even the
most promising of the North Slope for exploration for oil.
Let me quote from comments of an oil industry consultant in a recent
New York Times article:

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

Listen to the comments of a spokesman for BP Alaska:

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

We owe it to the American people to determine whether the measure
before us is responsible and responsive to our energy needs or whether
it is simply a distraction that threatens to bring down the 400-plus
pages of good energy policy contained in the underlying bill.
To determine that, I think we need only to ask a very businesslike,
very American question: What do we gain and what do we lose? I can tell
you what we would gain in less than a minute. It would take days to
catalog what we would lose. We are prepared, if necessary, to take
those days to stop this authorization to drill in the Arctic Refuge.
What we would gain I have talked about. It would take at least 10
years, and then there would be, at best, a 6-month supply of
economically recoverable oil--a yield that would be spread over 50
years.
What are the costs? The visible damage would be substantial: an
environmental treasure permanently lost, hundreds of species
threatened, international agreements jeopardized, oil spills further
endangering the Alaskan landscape, and an increase in air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions.
The unseen damage of drilling would be just as real: a nation--our
Nation--lulled into believing it has taken a step toward energy
independence, when it has done no such thing; a nation believing it is
extracting oil using so-called ``environmentally sensitive'' methods
when it will not--all in all, the American people misled in both
meanings of that term, not appreciating the reality, and also a failure
of leadership by those of us who are privileged to serve here in
Washington.
Finally, this plan would violate some of our most treasured American
values. I speak particularly of the values of conservation. This plan
presents a false promise of job creation, a false promise of economic
stimulus, a false promise of energy independence, and a false promise
of environmental sensitivity.
The first claim my colleagues make is that drilling in the Arctic is
a necessary part of a balanced, long-term energy strategy. But, I say
respectfully, calling drilling in the Arctic Refuge part of a strategic
energy plan is like calling oil a beverage. It is literally and
figuratively hard to swallow.
This ill-considered plan will do nothing to wean us from our
dependence on foreign oil. But we do have such a proposal which would
take aggressive and strategic steps in pursuit of new sources of energy
and better conservation; and that is the underlying bill fashioned by
Senator Bingaman, Senator Daschle, and others working with them. It
would provide us with the resources we need in the short term by
measures such as expediting the natural gas pipeline from Alaska and
providing the resources necessary to process the many lands already
leased for exploration.
I want to share with my colleagues a few words on the question of the
effect that drilling in the Arctic might have on jobs because that is
an argument that has been made.
Drilling in the Arctic Refuge will actually create fewer jobs than
dozens of the smarter alternatives that would create new industries
using American technology that will be encouraged by the underlying
bill. The much quoted study claiming that the Arctic drilling would
result in 750,000 jobs has since been widely discredited. Even its
authors have acknowledged its methodology was flawed.
The real job creation figure, in my opinion, is much closer to
45,000. Those jobs are short term, most of them in construction, as
opposed to the permanent jobs that would be created by new energy
industries, new energy technology industries created all over America.
In order to try to settle this question, the Joint Economic Committee
looked at the question and found that the proposal would result in
modest employment gains, peaking at an estimated 65,000 new jobs
nationwide in the year 2020. That would be an increase in projected
employment by less than one-tenth of 1 percent over that time--
certainly nothing to sacrifice a national treasure for, particularly
when we have so many better, new energy alternatives that will create
so many more longer lasting jobs.

I would like to say a word about the oil prices impact from drilling
in the Arctic because American consumers are sensitive and,
appropriately, accustomed to being concerned about the effect of world
political and economic events on oil pricing and gasoline pricing and
may be deceived into thinking that if we drill for oil in the Arctic
Refuge, we will be protected from international oil price fluctuations.
Drilling would have no impact on U.S. oil prices, even under the
inflated estimates for petroleum potential that are cited by drilling
advocates because the price of oil is determined by broad, global
supply and demand, not by the presence or absence of an individual
oilfield.
Let's look, for example, at the case of Prudhoe Bay. In 1976--the
year before the largest oilfield ever discovered in North America
entered production--a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil sold
for $12.65 and standard gasoline averaged--I take a deep breath here--
59 cents a gallon. That was 1976.
Two years later, with Prudhoe Bay now adding more than 2 million
barrels a day to domestic supply, in 1978, West Texas Intermediate
crude had increased by more than 15 percent to $14.85 a barrel and
gasoline averaged 63 cents a gallon. It went up. During the next 2
years, as Prudhoe Bay production increased, oil prices also skyrocketed
to $37.37 per barrel, while gasoline nearly doubled to $1.19 a gallon--
all because of world oil prices.
This obviously does not demonstrate a relationship between Alaskan
oil and gasoline prices that will be paid around the world.
In closing, I want to get back to what this all says about our values
and the choices we have to make. The question is, Are we willing to
destroy a habitat that is home to so much beauty and wildlife and
deprive future generations of visiting and experiencing this
magnificent part of our country in return for what will slightly--2
percent out of 62 percent--reduce our dependence on foreign oil two
decades from now and will not affect the price the American people will
pay for gasoline and oil?
I think the answer has to be no. Wilderness and the oil industry
cannot

[[Page S2783]]

peacefully coexist, certainly not in this case. So we are forced to
make a choice. I have made mine. I believe the American people agree.
Why? Because conserving our great open spaces is fundamentally an
affirmation of our core American values. Conservation is not a
Democratic or Republican value; it is a quintessentially American
value.
What lesson does it teach the generations that come after us if we go
ahead with this terrible mistake of drilling in the Arctic Refuge? That
we, as Americans, did not value our national heritage? That we did not
conserve it for future generations of Americans? That we sold it for,
essentially, effectively, the equivalent of a barrel of oil?
The ethic of conservation tells us it is not only sentimentally
difficult to part with beautiful wilderness, it is practically unwise,
because in doing so we deny future generations a priceless piece of our
common culture.
Let me close with the words of a great President, a great American, a
great conservationist, and a great Republican, Theodore Roosevelt. In
1916, he said this:

The ``greatest good for the greatest number'' applies to
the number within the womb of time, compared to which those
now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the
whole, including the unborn generations, bids us [to]
restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting
the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for
the conservation of wildlife and the larger movement for the
conservation of all our natural resources are essentially
democratic in spirit, purpose, and method.

That is a quote from the great T.R.
They live and breathe with as much wisdom today as they did in 1916.
In addition to all of the pluses and minuses and balances and
statistics, they are the ultimate reason why we should reject these
amendments to allow for the drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I rise today to discuss what I think is
one of the most important issues our Nation faces, and that is national
security.
Yes, this is an energy bill. More specifically, we are talking about
an amendment to drill for oil in a small remote region of Alaska. What
does that have to do with national security? Let's set the stage
because the facts are getting lost in some wonderful rhetoric that
takes me away in a dream world. I don't recognize the place I know as
Alaska when I listen to it.
We have tried to put out the facts. I have heard other things that
are not quite so factual. Just as a beginning, over the next 20 years,
U.S. oil consumption is projected to grow even after factoring in a
projected 26-percent increase in renewable energy supply, which we
strongly support, and a 29-percent increase in efficiency. Some people
think that is outrageous. Some people have a terrible guilt trip that
the United States uses so much oil we don't have enough, so we ought to
give up.
Drilling in ANWR reasonably could almost double our reserves. The
United States has about 22 billion barrels of proven reserves, 3
percent of the world's reserves. ANWR could hold 16 billion barrels of
oil more. That is almost doubling. It is adding 16 to 22 billion in our
reserves.
We use oil. There is no question about it. We have 5 percent of the
world's population. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. But we also
produce 31.5 percent of the world's total economic output. We are more
efficient than the world as a whole, and we produce food and medicine
and goods to improve the lives of Americans and people around the
globe.
Let's be serious. When we are talking about the fact that we use oil,
yes, we do. There is no question about it. We need to make sure we have
adequate oil reserves.
We just heard some information from the Energy Information
Administration that is a little outdated. There is more recently a
letter of March 22 to Senator Murkowski from Mary Hutzler, Acting
Administrator for Energy Information. I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of the letter and the addendum be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of Energy,

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

Mary J. Hutzler,

Acting Administrator,
Energy Information Administration.
Enclosure.

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

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

Mr. BOND. They take a look at the estimates for oil produced at ANWR.
And obviously, since it hasn't been drilled, we can only estimate. If
it is not there, they won't drill. So this effort is all in vain, but I
believe our U.S. Geological Survey and the other scientific experts
have a pretty good idea.
On average, if you take in the high and the low, U.S. Geological
Survey says there would be an increase of domestic production by about
14 percent. If you assume the high case, there could be an increase of
25 percent of domestic production. And when you have this kind of
production, this is what it means for us.
People say that is not much oil. In Missouri, 71 years of consumption

[[Page S2784]]

could be sustained by that; or Connecticut, 132 years; Minnesota, 85
years. To say that is not significant misses the picture very badly.
What would be our dependence upon foreign oil? Well, without ANWR in
2020, the energy outlook is that 66.7 percent of our crude oil would
come in from abroad. If you take the medium case, the medium production
case, it would drop that to 62.2 percent. That is a 5-percent or 4-
percent reduction. If it is the high case, it would go down to 58.7
percent, an 8-percent decline.
Those percentages make a huge difference. They make the difference
between whether we have a situation where we can manage it in tight
consumption or whether we are up against the wall.
The 1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain, called the 1002 area, of the
19.6-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is one of the best
places to look for the oil that America needs. When large chunks of
Alaska were set aside in 1980, they saved a small 1.5-million-acre
Coastal Plain out of 19.6 million acres. Why did they save it?
Well, we have the letter of July 3, 1980, from Senator Hatfield and
Chairman Henry Jackson. They were right when they wrote this in 1980.
They said:

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

``Ostrich-like approach,'' those are the words of Chairman Jackson.
He said: This is an energy issue. It is a national defense issue. It is
an economic issue. It is not just an easy vote you can throw away and
get some greenie points. Chairman Jackson concluded:

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

The only regret I have today is that the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee did not have an opportunity to craft a bill because I am
confident that they know the energy situation. And they would have said
that this is a necessary step.
The Energy Department said: The Coastal Plain is the largest
unexplored, potentially productive onshore basin in the United States.
The USGS estimates there are up to 16 billion barrels of recoverable
oil, enough to offset Saudi imports for 30 years.
The 1002 area is not a beautiful piece of America. Congress set it
aside for oil exploration. The people who talk about this give these
word pictures of a magnificent forest. I don't think they have been
there. When I go back home, I ask anybody: Have you been to the North
Slope? Do you know what it looks like?

They tell me: No.
I kid my colleagues from Oklahoma that it is as attractive as a
frozen Oklahoma. Nobody I know has refused to drill for oil in Oklahoma
because of its pristine beauty. I have been there. I have swatted away
the mosquitos.
This is what it looks like in the winter. My good friend, the senior
Senator from Alaska, refers to it as the proverbial Hades. It is quite
a few degrees colder.
When I have been there in the middle of July, it has gone up to 38 or
39 degrees, and there are those hardy souls who work out there in shirt
sleeves, 39 degrees, because it is a heat wave.
This is the best we can show you. This is what the 1002 area looks
like. That is Kaktovik in the background. Look at this magnificent
beautiful piece of Alaska. Look a little flat? Look a little same? It
is. But it has its own beauty. It really does.
One of the beauties is it has caribou and wildlife and birds, and
they thrive up there. Here is a picture of drilling in Prudhoe Bay.
This is Prudhoe Bay. If you can't see very well what it is, all these
are caribou. The caribou herds thrive. The drilling does put permanent
structures in there. But the temporary rock and gravel roads make a
great place for caribou to calve. And the birds are there and the other
wildlife is there.
Somebody said we are going to destroy this great swath, this
beautiful natural reserve in Alaska. Are we talking about the same
thing? We are talking about 2,000 acres, roughly 3 square miles, out of
the Coastal Plain of 30,600 square miles. That is less than the size of
Dulles Airport and the State of South Carolina. It is 3 square miles
out of 30,600 square miles. This was in the area consciously set aside,
on a bipartisan basis, because Chairman Jackson and the people on the
Energy Committee then realized that this was where we were going to
have to get our natural resources.
What would happen if we drilled and they found oil? It would mean
700,000 jobs would be created across the United States--not from a
Government make-work program, but from private investment.
Wildlife habitat will be protected under the world's strictest and
most environmental standards. To drill out there, you have to take all
the equipment in, in the midwinter on ice roads, when it is 100 to 200
degrees below zero. That is so cold that I cannot even think about it.
But you do that so you don't disrupt the land.
The caribou herd in and near Prudhoe Bay's oilfield is five times
larger than when development began. It is five times larger. Prudhoe
Bay is producing 20 percent of our Nation's oil production.
Now, let me say one other thing. As a result of my personal visit up
there, the people who live there, the indigenous people, the Native
Alaskans, the people who live in the region, they understand that this
is the way they can improve their lives. They can make a positive
economic contribution to the welfare of this Nation and benefit from
it. They begged us to allow them to go ahead and develop a
resource that will not interfere with their fishing and their hunting
and the wildlife around them.

I heard it said that it would be 10 years before we got any oil.
Well, it depends on how much Congress delays it, how many lawsuits.
Perhaps as soon as 3 years after the first lease sale. There has
already been discovery on State lands of an oilfield that extends under
the Coastal Plain. We know it is there, just not how much. If the
Congress were serious about it and we said we want to develop this in
an environmentally sound manner and do it quickly, we could get it
online.
Contrary to a myth that many on the other side have spread, and as my
friends from Alaska pointed out, we are not exporting the North Slope
oil. None has been exported since May 2000. The average well at Prudhoe
Bay produces over 550 barrels per day, more than 45 times the 12.5
barrels of oil produced per day by the average oil well in the United
States. If the oil in ANWR is locked up, a lot of wells will have to be
drilled to replace it, or we will be back in the situation in which we
found ourselves several weeks ago.
By a very significant majority, 63 Members of this body, said we want
to continue to be able to give American consumers the choice to drive
SUVs, light pickup trucks, or vans. We ordered the Department of
Transportation to use the best scientific and technological information
available to push for increased oil and petroleum efficiency, gasoline
combustion efficiency, and do everything we can to increase the
efficiency. But don't force unrealistic standards that merely require
us to move down to smaller and smaller cars until we are driving around
in golf carts. If we are going to continue to supply the energy needs
that my colleagues who voted with us on the CAFE amendment said we are
going to need, we need the oil coming from ANWR. This is absolutely
essential for our economy, for the sound development, the business of
industry, and, most of all, to supply the transportation needs of our
families.
For each dollar of crude oil and natural gas brought to the market,
there will be $2.25 of economic activity generated through the economy.
The actual impact of the ANWR oil could be anywhere from $270 billion
to $780 billion. These are all good economic arguments. But this is not
the only question.
Keeping the oil production in the United States means we are buying
less oil from overseas. We keep our domestic dollars at home. These are
U.S. dollars not going to foreign countries, with leaders who may be on
a mission to destroy our entire existence.
If that was too subtle for some colleagues, let me explain it. Just
last week, we watched Iraq announced a month-long oil export embargo to
protest Israel's response to the terror

[[Page S2785]]

campaign. Some argue that Iraq only produces 1.5 billion barrels a day,
roughly 4 percent of world production. We are told Saddam Hussein is
only supplying 8 percent of U.S. imports. It ought to be time that we
tell the American people this country can not and should not maintain
that level of dependence on Iraqi oil.
Last year, we paid Saddam Hussein $6.5 billion. Does that sound like
good policy? Do the American people really want to continue any efforts
to benefit a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein, who continues his reckless
oppression of his own people while threatening the security of the
world with the development of weapons of mass destruction?
Madam President, let me answer that question emphatically. The United
States must not continue this type of dependence, resulting in billions
of dollars going directly to one of this century's most demented and
ruthless rulers. The time has come for the United States to develop its
own ability to produce oil and petroleum so we don't have to depend on
him.

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

What do they propose doing? How are we going to have the energy we
need to fuel the growing economy we all want in America? I think we
should do all of these things, and that is my problem with this bill.
This bill has a lot of conservation incentives and alternative fuels.
We have the tax bill that came out of the Finance Committee. There is a
large amount of tax incentives for hybrid sales in automobiles, and to
encourage getting these marginal wells back in usage. We have all of
that in the bill but not what we need for energy production.
The point that is so critical to me--this map I am sure my colleagues
and the American people have seen. The area we are talking about is an
extremely small portion on the Arctic Ocean, and the people of the
region and the Senators and Congressmen of the State want this to
happen. We are being told we cannot do that.
We are being told by people from States in the furthest extremities
of the eastern part of the United States:

[[Page S2786]]

We do not think this should happen in this area.
Whatever happened to Senatorial courtesy and trust? For years as a
Member of Congress in the House and Senate, I put my greatest
reliance--although I reserve the right to make up my own mind--but I
put an awful lot of reliance on the Senators and Congressmen from the
States.
When I had the Congressman from North Dakota say to me and others:
Yes, the Garrison Diversion is something we want--a lot of
environmentalists said we should not have the Garrison Diversion--I
took the word of then-Congressman, now-Senator Dorgan about the need
for and the justification for the Garrison Diversion.
We have had lots of debates in years gone by about water supply in
Arizona. I did not have a Mississippi dog in that fight. I did not know
all the ramifications of the argument. Who did I rely on? I relied on
the word of the Congressmen and the Senators and the people in the
local region.
Why are we not doing that now? Two of the most effective, most
respected Senators in this body, the Senators from Alaska, Mr. Stevens
and Mr. Murkowski, are pleading with us to give them the opportunity to
do this in a safe, reliable, affordable way in a very small region.
We have the letter from the Alaska Natives who live in this area
asking us to support opening of ANWR, and basically pleading with us to
give them an opportunity. The people who live in the region want it.
They know it can be done safely. They know it can be done in a way that
would benefit the people economically. I am really at a loss for words
to explain why this should not be done.
There is a national movement of some kind by various groups saying we
must not let this happen, but when it comes to dealing with energy
independence, when it comes to dealing with the likes of dictators in
Iraq such as Saddam Hussein, when it comes to creating new jobs, this
is the thing to do. It is supported by labor unions. The people who
would be involved in transporting the supplies, the people who would be
involved in building the pipelines, they are for this.
For those who are worried about the environment, I have never seen a
project that has stronger environmental rules that would have to be
enforced than any project I know of, and they have narrowed the area.
They have offered to put more land in pristine reservations. Everything
possible has been done to make it possible for us in the United States
to get the benefit of this exploration and this pipeline and the supply
we would get from it.
So when we look at our current situation, relying on 60 percent
foreign oil for our energy needs, when we look at the instability in
the world, in several countries where we rely on the oil they produce,
and then when we look at the benefits we get economically, and the
jobs, this is legislation we clearly should pass.
An energy policy without ANWR is not complete. In my own case, I have
spoken about the ability to explore in what is known as the Destin Dome
in the Gulf of Mexico, close to where I live. I want it because we need
it. I know it can be done in an environmentally safe way and in a way
that will not be damaging to the fish in the Gulf of Mexico, and yet we
had a tremendous debate in the Senate about opening up even a part of
that area. Yet those of us who live there, the Senators from Alabama
and Mississippi, although not the case with the Florida Senators, were
saying: This can be done, and we need to do it.
I believe a map speaks a million words in explaining what is
involved. So I thank Senator Murkowski for his diligence. He has tried
every way in the world to make sure the American people understand the
importance of this, that they understand this could be done in a way
that would benefit America with probably somewhere between half a
million and 735,000 new jobs, that it would reduce our dependence on
foreign oil.
Some people said if we started today, we would not get it online for
months, perhaps years. Eventually we are going to have to do this. The
time will come when America is going to have serious energy problems
and we are going to have to go where we can get energy the quickest,
and one of those places is this particular area on that northern slope
of Alaska.
So I wanted to come and add my support for this effort. I do not know
how in the world we can justify not being for this. I believe President
Clinton vetoed this effort in 1995, and yet the Congress has passed
this several times over the last 20 years. I believe that is correct
information. We should do it once again.
I urge my colleagues, if they are undecided or if they have been
leaning the other way, think about it again. The situation has changed.
The need for this oil and the gas that might be involved has changed
since this debate began. I would not want to be a Senator who voted no
on this 6 months from now, because we could be having huge problems.
This could be a vote that would haunt us forever. I do not mean that as
a threat, I mean it as a plea. We need this.

The Senator from Louisiana and I are very closely situated to the
Gulf of Mexico. We know we can get oil and gas with the technology now
available. That technology is so sophisticated. one does not just take
a potshot down and hope they hit. When they look at the charts, they
know exactly where the little shelves are. They can go right to where
the oil is.
Some of the best fishing I have ever experienced in my life was
around the oil rigs off the coast of Louisiana, not far from the
Chandelier Islands. I know the area. I have been there. I have not been
to ANWR.
Senator Murkowski and I will have to debate where fishing is the
best. He has tried to take me to Alaska, but I said: ``Isn't it very
cold up there? Isn't it a pretty barren area?'' I would rather go where
there are palm trees or oil rigs already in place.
I say to my colleague from Alaska, I really appreciate the job he has
done. I am going to work with him to the very last minute to see if we
cannot do what is right, not just for the Senator from Alaska, not even
just for Alaska. This is for America. If we are from some remote State,
for us to say this little piece of 2,000 acres cannot be used to
produce oil and gas is irresponsible, in my opinion, when you look at
what we are faced with in terms of threats around the world.
I urge my colleagues to pass this. Let us get a good energy bill for
the good of our country.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the leader yield for a question?
Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Does the leader know what the temperature is outside
today?
Mr. LOTT. In Washington, DC, I think it is approaching 95. What is
the temperature on the northern slope of Alaska?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was hoping the minority leader would respond by
asking me a question. Having been there exactly a year ago today, with
Senator Bingaman, who left his gloves at home and we had to find a pair
of socks for him--we later found him a pair of gloves--and Gale Norton,
Secretary of the Interior, it happened to be 77 below zero in Barrow.
That gives some idea of the contrast between Washington, DC, and
Alaska.
Mr. LOTT. In April it is still that cold?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It was that particular day a year ago today. So I
think that is a little reference to the harshness of the environment up
there.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to
which I referred be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation,

Kaktovik, AK, April 17, 2002.
Hon. Tom Daschle,
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Daschle and Lott: The people of Kaktovik,
Alaska--Kaktovikmiut--are the only residents within the
entire 19.6 million acres of the federally recognized
boundaries of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Kaktovikmiut ask for your help in fulfilling our destiny as
Inupiat Eskimos and Americans. We ask that you support
reopening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to energy exploration.
Reopening the Coastal Plain will allow us access to our
traditional lands. We are asking Congress to fulfill its
promise to the Inupiat people and to all Americans: to
evaluate the potential of the Coastal Plain.

[[Page S2787]]

In return, as land-owners of 92,160 acres of privately
owned within the Coastal Plain of ANWR, the Kaktovik Inupiat
Corporation promises to the Senate of the United States:
1. We will never use our abundant energy resources ``as a
weapon'' against the United States, as Iraq, Iran, Libya and
other foreign energy exporting nations have proposed.
2. We will not engage in supporting terrorism, terrorist
States or any enemies of the United States;
3. We will neither hold telethons to raise money for,
contribute money to, or in any other way support the
slaughter of innocents at home or abroad;
4. We will continue to be loyal Alaskans and proud
Americans who will be all the more proud of a government
whose actions to reopen ANWR and our lands will prove it to
be the best remaining hope for mankind on Earth; and
5. We will continue to pray for the United States, and ask
God to bless our nation.
We do not have much, Gentleman, except for the promises of
the U.S. government that the settlement of our land claims
against the United States would eventually lead to the
control of our destiny by our people.
In return we give our promises as listed above. We ask that
you accept them from the grateful Inupiat Eskimo people of
the North Slope of Alaska who are proud to be American.
Most respectfully and sincerely,
Fenton Rexford,
President.

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I wonder why they call it barren.
Mr. President, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request
momentarily, but I do want to get the attention of the minority leader
for 1 second. I am going to have my colleague and friend, John Ensign,
speak to Senator Lott based upon the speech Senator Lott just gave.
When the Senator talked about senatorial courtesy and how we should
give deference to what Senators from a State want, I want Senator
Ensign to talk to Senator Lott about Yucca Mountain because it would
seem fair to me, using the analogy that has been stated for drilling in
Alaska, the same should apply to Nevada. But we will see.
Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to.
Mr. LOTT. I am always delighted to talk to Senator Reid and Senator
Ensign. I think maybe the Record will reflect in the past that I did
listen very closely to some of his pleas. But we will have a chance to
debate that another day.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the two managers. I have
visited with virtually everybody in the Chamber. The staff has visited
with various other staff members. We have 11 Senators who have
indicated a desire to speak on this matter, which works out so each
side goes back and forth, and the time almost works out perfectly also.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be recognized for 20
minutes; following Senator Durbin, that Senator Burns be recognized for
15 minutes; following Senator Burns, Senator Cantwell be recognized for
15 minutes; next, Senator Voinovich for 20 minutes; Senator Landrieu
for 30 minutes; Senator Feingold for 20 minutes; Senator Domenici for
15 minutes; Senator Dorgan for 20 minutes; Senator Craig for 30
minutes; Senator Graham for 30 minutes; and then Senator Nickles is the
last speaker who I have been told wishes to speak, and there would be
no time limit on him.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Reserving the right to object, I want to work with the
majority whip. Senator Stevens is going to want to speak and does not
want to be limited to any time commitment.
Mr. REID. No problem.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am also going to reserve my right to extend my
remarks. I do not want this list to exclude other Members who may be
wanting to speak. In the interest of time, I am quite willing to
proceed with the list as given, subject to the gentlemen and ladies who
are in the Chamber currently looking for recognition.
Mr. REID. I also ask unanimous consent that following Senator
Nickles, Senator Stabenow be recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is the understanding, Mr. President, that we will
go back and forth.
Mr. REID. The consent I propounded does that. The time works out
quite closely, also.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I reserve the right of Senator Stevens to come in to
this sequence if it is necessary. I assume Senator Bingaman will
reserve that right for himself, as I will, and the majority leader
would, as well.
Mr. REID. I certainly think the two managers of the bill should be
able to say whatever they believe is appropriate during this debate.
But so we have some understanding, until we get this agreement, there
is no extended remarks of the two managers. We get this done and
Members can speak as long as they wish.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Reserving the right to object, I reserve that for
Senator Stevens because he is in a hearing and he may want to come
back. I ask unanimous consent he be allowed to come into the sequence
which would involve an interruption.
Mr. REID. I think that is fair.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Senator Bingaman and I work well together.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I again propound the request, with the
exception of Senator Stevens, who is involved elsewhere. If he wishes
to speak, he will be allowed to speak at the appropriate time for
whatever time he desires.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We would like to have a copy of the list because there
are two lists working.
Mr. REID. We will get that to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I am not mistaken, I am the first
Senator under the unanimous consent request. I thank the Senators from
Nevada and Alaska.

This has turned out to be a historic debate about energy in that we
have spent more time on it than any other issue I can remember since I
have come to the Senate in the last 5 or 6 years. It is important we do
spend the time, because if the issue is energy security and energy
independence, we see on a daily basis why it is not only timely, but
absolutely essential for our national security.
We followed the issues in the Middle East for many reasons. There are
those who feel a special attachment to the nation of Israel and the
alliance of the United States with that nation. There are those who
follow it for many other reasons. Let's be honest. One of the reasons
we consistently look to the Middle East is because it is a source of
energy for the United States. We were involved in a war a little over
10 years ago, the Persian Gulf war, because of the invasion of Kuwait
by Iraq. President Bush's father made it clear at the time this was
about energy, about oil.
Time and again, the United States focuses its attention on the world
because of our dependence on other countries for the oil and gas they
send to our shores. It is an essential part of our economy, an
essential part of our daily lives. We Americans are very happy and
comfortable with our automobiles and trucks. We like that part of being
in America. However, it has a price. It has a price not only in
maintaining the vehicle but a price in terms of our relationship with
the world.
The purpose of this energy bill is to talk about how we establish
some energy independence and energy security, how we make the right
decisions today so we can say to our kids and our grandchildren, in the
year 2002, we took a look at the world and said: We will change a few
things in the United States so we don't end up totally dependent on
some foreign country for our energy, so that your life and your economy
is going to be less dependent on what happens in Saudi Arabia or the
gulf states or any other part of the world.
That is as noble an aspiration as could be asked for in political
life. It generated, thanks to the leadership of Senator Bingaman of New
Mexico, this lengthy tome of suggestions for change when it comes to
energy in America. What is curious is the administration, President
Bush, Vice President Cheney, and others, came up with their own plan.
That plan was fraught with controversy and political intrigue. At one
point, we asked a very simple question of the administration: With whom
did you meet? Which corporations and companies and associations did you
meet with to draw up your energy plan for America's future?
To the surprise of this Senator, and many others, Vice President
Cheney basically said: That is none of your business. We are going to
put together

[[Page S2788]]

our plan and submit it to you. We hope you like it, but you don't have
a right to know with whom we consulted.
In the meantime, the Government Accounting Office has taken the
administration to court to produce the names of the people with whom
they worked. A court in the District of Columbia ordered the disclosure
of some of the names. To the surprise of virtually no one, the major
groups that wrote the administration's policy were the oil and gas
companies, the energy companies. They are the ones that put it
together. Yes, there was an invitation for an environmental group to
drop by and say, hello, have a sandwich, and leave, but the substantive
work and the appointments were with the energy companies. It is
reflected in the administration's approach.

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

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

So if we give to those oil companies the right to move into this
wildlife refuge, the right to drill in territory and land which we have
set aside and held sacred now for over 40 years, what does America get
as part of the deal? A net reduction in our dependence on foreign oil
by the year 2020 from 62 percent of all the oil we use to 60 percent.
The estimates are all of the oil taken out of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge over a 10-year period of time would amount to 6 months'
worth of energy for the United States.
Why, then, if that is what we are talking about, is this the
centerpiece of the administration's policy? It goes back to the point I
made earlier. It is the centerpiece of their policy because the people
who wrote the policy, the special interest groups that sat down and
crafted the policy, have another agenda. It isn't energy security; it
isn't energy independence. It is about profitability.
Look at the impact of ANWR on net imports. The green line is net
imports with ANWR; the blue line is net imports otherwise. They are
almost indistinguishable. The chart says the same thing that President
Bush's Department of Energy has already said.
So we find ourselves in the position of debating this issue. When
President Eisenhower created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--and I
might remind people, President Eisenhower was not viewed as some
radical environmentalist--he was following in a long line and a long
tradition in America where Presidents of both political parties took a
look at their heritage, America's lands, and said: There are certain
things which we want to honor, respect, and not exploit.
They took a tiny piece of real estate in one of the most remote parts
of America, in this new State of Alaska, and said: This piece we will
protect as a wildlife refuge.
For over 40 years, President after President, Democrat and
Republican, respected that--until today. Today we have an argument from
this President and his supporters in Congress that it is time for us to
move in and start to drill.

I suggest to my colleagues that the Arctic Coastal Plain we are
discussing is a unique natural area, one of America's last frontiers.
These precious lands will be part of our legacy for future generations.
Before we cavalierly say to these oil companies: pull in the trucks,
pull in the rigs, and start drilling, we ought to step back and reflect
as to whether or not this is sensible or responsible. I do not believe
it is.
In this energy policy we have brought to the floor, there are a lot
of suggestions about reducing our dependence on foreign oil. There was
one that came to the floor for debate and a vote a week or two ago
which went to the heart of the issue. Of all the oil we import to the
United States today from overseas, 46 percent of it goes for one
purpose--to fuel our cars and trucks. That is right. Forty-six percent
of all the oil coming to the United States goes to fuel our automobiles
and trucks. That number is supposed to grow to almost 60 percent in a
few years. In other words, our demands for more vehicles to be driven
on the highway as we want is going to increase our dependence on
foreign oil.
Doesn't it stand to reason that part of any responsible energy bill
would talk about the fuel efficiency of the cars and trucks that we
drive?
Not in the eyes of the Senate. We had a vote to put a new fuel
efficiency standard on the books and it lost 62 to 38. The Big Three
automakers and their supporters came to the Senate and said: We do not
want you to improve the fuel efficiency and fuel economy of vehicles in
America.
The Senate said: You are right. We are not going to touch it.
Why is that significant? It is significant for this reason. Look at
what would happen here in terms of the billions of barrels of oil we
would have saved just by increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and
trucks in America. If we had gone up to 36 miles a gallon by 2015, with
10-percent trading of credits back and forth, the red line shows we
would be saving somewhere in the range of 14 billion barrels of oil
cumulative; at 35 miles per gallon, you see the blue line is higher
because it is at an earlier date that it is implemented.
You have to scroll down here, if you are following this, and look
down low and see what the ANWR means in comparison. It is this line
here at the bottom, barely over 2 billion barrels of oil in the entire
history of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
This Senate rejected real savings when it came to fuel efficiency and
fuel economy. We rejected that. We rejected it, incidentally, because
the Big Three in Detroit and their lobbyists in Washington effectively
lobbied the Senate.
But today we are being asked to go ahead and drill in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge that has been set aside for 40
years, and we know it doesn't even hold a candle to the savings
enhanced fuel efficiency would generate in terms of our energy
dependence.
The lesson and the moral to the story is there are a lot more
lobbyists for the oil companies than there are for the Porcupine
caribou that live in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is the
bottom line. There are not a lot of people out there with antlers,
waiting in the lobby, but there are a lot of folks with Gucci loafers
on, and they are waiting to tell us: Don't touch the Big Three when it
comes to the fuel efficiency of vehicles.
I think it is shameful to think that between 1975 and 1985 we passed
a law that doubled the fuel efficiency of cars to a level of about 28
miles per gallon, and that we have not touched that issue for 17 years.
That tells me we have been derelict in our responsibility. If we really
cared about America's independence and security, we would be focusing
on fuel efficiency, fuel economy of the cars and trucks we

[[Page S2789]]

drive. But this Senate walked away from it and said, no, we don't want
any part of that debate. We are with the Big Three. We are with the
special interests. Instead, let's figure out how we can drill in the
ANWR.
That is not the only thing we have ignored. Renewable energy sources,
what are those? Those are the ones that are not expended such as fossil
fuels. Once you burn the tank of gas, it is gone into the atmosphere.
We get the energy out of it and leave the pollution. Renewable energy
sources, such as wind and solar energy and hydrogen cells and those
sorts of things, fuel cells, all of those have the potential of
environmentally friendly sources of energy. How much do we in the
United States today rely on that kind of renewable energy to generate
electricity? To the tune of about 4 percent of our total, about 4
percent.
Some of us said: Why don't we take on, as a challenge to America,
increasing our dependence on renewable environmentally friendly energy
sources such as wind power and solar power and fuel cells and hydrogen
power? Let's increase the renewable portfolio standard to 20 percent
over a 20-year period of time. Senator Jeffords of Vermont offered
that. I cosponsored it. It is not an unrealistic goal. The State of
California currently relies on renewable energy sources for more than
10 percent of its electricity.
We can, as a nation, do it, reduce dependence on foreign energy. But
this Senate said no because the oil companies, the special interests
out in the lobby, in their three-piece suits, said: No, we are not
interested in that. We don't own the wind. We don't own the Sun. We own
the oil. We own the gas. Stay dependent on that, America.
So we have a modest goal of increasing our use of renewable energy
from 4 percent to 8 or 10 percent. At a time when we are dealing with
an energy bill, I think we are suffering from anemia. We are afraid to
step out and do what is necessary to make America less dependent on
foreign fuel.
Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is the answer to
every lobbyist's prayer. But, honestly, it is not the answer to
America's prayer. America is praying this Senate comes to its senses,
that we understand we can make and must make bold and important
decisions today. If we say to the Big Three, you have the wherewithal
and the technology to produce a more fuel-efficient vehicle so we can
still move our kids to soccer games and be safe on the road, they can
do it. We issued that challenge before and they did it. They didn't
like it. They resisted it.
In 1975, when we increased fuel efficiency, the Big Three said that
was impossible. Double fuel economy in America? Let me tell you what is
wrong with that idea: Technically impossible; the cars will be so small
they will look like gocarts, they will not be safe, Americans won't
drive them, and you are going to drive jobs overseas. That was the
argument in 1975.
Guess what. We ignored them, passed the law, and none of those four
things happened. By 1985, we doubled fuel economy and none of those
things happened. So in the year 2002, when we get in the same debate
about fuel efficiency, what did the Big Three say? Technically, it's
really impossible, Senator, for us to improve fuel economy. The cars
will be so tiny they will be like gocarts. People won't like them. They
won't be safe. And people are going to buy cars from overseas. The same
arguments, the same empty arguments. It shows an attitude of some of
our manufacturers in this country which in a way is embarrassing.

Why is it when it comes to the new generation of vehicles on the
road, the hybrid vehicles getting 50 or 60 miles a gallon, they all
have Japanese nameplates on them? I don't get it. This is the greatest
country in the world, with the strongest military in the world, the
best schools in the world, the best engineers in the world. Yet when it
comes to automobiles, we are satisfied with the bronze medal every day
of the week. Frankly, the Senate has not stepped up to its
responsibility in adding the provisions that are necessary to make sure
our energy independence is established.
We want energy security but not at the expense of America's last
frontier. If we are serious about energy security, we have to reduce
oil consumption in the vehicles in our country. A comprehensive,
balanced energy policy will provide for oil and gas development in
environmentally responsible areas--not the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge.
We can establish conservation measures. We can cut down on our energy
consumption. We owe that not only to ourselves but to our children.
As James E. Service, a retired vice admiral of the Navy, wrote in a
recent Los Angeles Times op-ed:

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

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

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

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

[[Page S2790]]

stake, and they are not comfortable with the facts they are given. They
are equally uncomfortable with what is happening on the floor of this
Senate.
I have one simple question: Why are we importing oil from Iraq?
Agreed, they are allowed to sell oil under the U.N. resolution. The
income derived from those sales is to be used to buy food and medical
supplies for the citizens of Iraq. If Saddam Hussein sells us anywhere
from 650,000 to 850,000 barrels of oil a day, and also sells some oil
on the black market, what is he doing with that money? Where do you
think it goes? I will tell you where it doesn't go. It doesn't go
to the citizens of Iraq. He buys arms and technology to equip his army
and support terrorist activities around the world. In fact, we are told
that Iraq is paying $25,000 cash to any family who loses a suicide
bomber. That is going way over the line.

From the Gulf, we import about 10.8 million barrels of oil a day, and
1.5 million barrels comes from Saudi Arabia. Nearly a million barrels
come from Iraq.
Let us take a look at this tiny little spot called the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. Keep in mind that when it was created, this
little area was set aside for oil and gas exploration and production.
That is the reason it was set aside--not the whole Arctic Plain, but
just that little footprint of 2,000 acres or less.
Conservative estimates put the total production at about 1.35 million
barrels a day. That would replace 55 years of oil from Iraq and 30
years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.
The reserves in ANWR are estimated to be 10 billion barrels. That is
a conservative estimate.
Remember how we underestimated Prudhoe Bay. It has produced nearly 20
percent of our domestic production in the last 25 years.
Since 1973, domestic production has decreased by 57 percent. We are
only producing about 8 million barrels a day, and we are using 19
million barrels a day.
Anybody who doesn't understand that didn't take basic math in the
same grade school where I went to school, which is a little country
school.
We hear every day on the floor of the Senate that we should be
concerned about our balance of payments. We should be concerned about
it. Last year alone, we sent $4.5 billion to Saddam Hussein's Iraq for
his oil.
As I said, energy security is economic security is national security.
This has a job impact. We heard all kinds of estimates. But we know
this won't happen without the effort of labor. Yesterday, if you had
stood with the heart and soul of the labor folks in this country and
heard their arguments that this should happen, then you would
understand why the Nation supports the development and exploration of
this tiny spot.
We have people living in Montana who work on the North Slope. We have
had since the first day they started production up there. They jump on
airplanes, spend a couple of weeks, and come home for a week. It is
important to my state. If Prudhoe were built today, the footprint would
be around 1,500 acres--64 percent smaller than it is. ANWR will impact
2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres on the Coastal Plain.
I have been up there. I have seen the Porcupine caribou herd. It has
grown about three times in size during the last 20 years. That is where
they calve. They don't stay there all winter. They are a migrating
herd. Nothing has kept them from migrating. The people who live in that
area depend on that herd. That is a source of food supply for them.
When they migrate, that is when they get their winter stores. They
don't have grocery stores like we have down here. They don't want
anything to happen to that herd. I don't think they are going to
mislead us on how that herd will be impacted.
Oil and gas production and wildlife have successfully coexisted in
the Alaskan Arctic for over 30 years. The figures bear that out.
Despite what is told and the misinformation that flies around here,
the folks on the Coastal Plain support this by 75 percent. They
understand what the revenue does. They understand that it provides a
government service which is demanded by them. That is even taking into
account the money that it pumps into the National Treasury. Anybody on
the Budget Committee around here would understand that also.

I know how this impacts a State represented by two Senators who have
stood in this Chamber and have fought for their people every day. It is
like us going to southern Illinois and saying: You can't have any more
oil production down there. But they can't say it because there are no
public lands. But in Alaska there are, and that is the difference.
Withdrawal of public lands from any exploration of natural gas in the
States of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and some in New Mexico, has cost
the American people 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And that is
going to be the fuel that produces the electricity of the future. We
think it is for ``the environment,'' when it could be lifted, produced,
and moved with hardly a disturbance to any of the surface of our land.
And, yes, you are going to see natural gas turn up as a
transportation fuel.
What we are doing in this argument defies common sense. These are the
facts. They should not take away from our investment into new
technologies and our determination for conservation. I will not let
anybody else redefine the word ``conservation'' because it is defined
as a wise use of a resource. We should move forward on R&D into new
technologies. Even coal--and Montana is the ``Saudi Arabia'' of the
coal reserves in this country--it is there, it is handy, it is
affordable, and it is ready for use.
Our investment in fuel cell technology will be an important part of
our energy mix, and we should not depart from its development. I will
tell you what fuel cells do. Fuel cells are to the electric industry
what the wireless telephone is to the communications industry. They are
safe, clean, and now we have a chance to make it affordable. We should
continue our work in that area.
But, in the meantime, let's do what common sense tells us to do:
Let's use that little footprint afforded to this country for the
production of energy because energy security is economic security, is
national security.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, seeing no other Senator seeking
recognition, I would like to take just a few minutes to share with you
a chart that has already been identified on a couple of occasions but I
think needs a little further identification.
As I show you on this map what happened to Alaska in 1980. The ANILCA
land law was passed, and our State was, in effect, gerrymandered by
Congress.
I want you to look at all those stripes across an area that is one-
fifth the size of the United States because it is entirely the
Tongass--this area in southeastern Alaska where our capital, Juneau, is
located--Ketchikan, our fifth largest city; Wrangell; Petersburg;
Sitka; Haines; Skagway--this is a national forest. There are 16 million
acres in that national forest. The only thing they forgot is people
lived in the forest. The communities were there. The assumption was
that there would be no real justification for the State selecting land
there. It was not even an issue in statehood in 1959.
The reason it was not an issue is there was an assumed trust between
the people of Alaska and the Congress of this country that those people
could live in that forest, they could make a living off the
renewability of the resources, the fish and the timber.
Previous to statehood, the Department of Interior ran the fisheries
resources of Alaska. They did a deplorable job. They figured that one
size fits all. We actually had our fishermen on self-imposed limits.
My point in showing you this detail is this is what happened to
Alaska. Rather than have a resource inventory of those areas that had
the capability for minerals, oil and gas, timber, and fish, there was
an arbitrary decision made. It was a cut deal by President Carter. As a
consequence, these areas of Alaska were withdrawn. They are wilderness
or refuges or sanctuaries, but they were all withdrawn from
development.
I want you to take a closer look at the map because here is where the
real influence of America's extreme environmental community entered
into this national effort.
You notice here on the map, clear across where the Arctic area comes

[[Page S2791]]

into play, this is the general area of the Arctic Circle. There is only
a little tiny white spot that was left for access, if you will. And the
access we have from the Arctic, from Prudhoe Bay, is through that
little area where we have this red line, which is the pipeline that
brings 20 percent of America's total crude oil to market in Valdez.
They tried to gerrymander, if you will, the designation of land in
this State by closing access. We have this huge area out by Kotzebue
that is mineralized. They closed that off. This did not happen by
accident. This was a cut-and-dry deal in 1980. Now we are living with
it today.
I recognize my good friend from Ohio is in the Chamber, so I will be
very brief in making this point because I am going to be making several
points throughout the remainder of the day.
We have heard quotes from Theodore Roosevelt by some of the speakers.
I would like to ask just for a brief reflection on another quote in
1910. Theodore Roosevelt said:

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

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

This act of Congress reaffirms our commitment to the
environment. It strikes a balance between protecting areas of
great beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska's
vital oil and gas and mineral and timber resources.

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

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

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

I'm joyous. I'm glad today for the people of Alaska. They
can get on with building a great State. They're a great
people. And this matter is settled and put to rest, and the
development of Alaska can go forward with balance.

That is a pretty strong statement. The citizens of the territory of
Alaska bought that. Of course, we were a State at that time in 1980. We
bought it, we believed that we could get on with the development of our
State. The ability to get on with the development of Alaska was the
ability to penetrate the mentality of the Congress and any given
administration on the right that we have, as American citizens, to
develop our State.
We have been, for all practical purposes, eliminated. Because every
time we want to do something, we have to cross Federal land. We don't
even have access to our State capital. These were promises made to the
people of Alaska. These were promises that have not been kept by the
Federal Government.
As we debate the area, the 1002 and ANWR, again, I ask both
Republicans and Democrats to recognize, it is not a wilderness. It has
never been a wilderness. It is a refuge. The Senator from Louisiana has
charts that show us what has happened in refuges. We have oil and gas
exploration in them all the time.
This was reserved for Congress. Only Congress can open it. But for
those who think it is an untouched, spectacular area, there are people
who live up there. There is the village of Kaktovik.
Let's put this discussion in real terms. We are fighting for the
rights we thought we had obtained when we became a State, the right to
responsibly develop the State. This chart shows oil and gas production
in refuges around this country. Don't tell me that somehow we are doing
something wrong by trying to open a refuge in the Arctic.
We will have a lot more to say about this. I did want to address the
inconsistency and the broken promises that have been made and the fact
that our small delegation, Senator Stevens and I and Representative
Young, feel very strongly, as do the residents of Alaska, that this
trust has been broken.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of permitting
oil exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. Permitting oil
production in ANWR will help ensure that the United States is better
able to meet our growing energy needs in an environmentally sound
manner, create and retain hundreds of thousands of jobs, boost our
domestic economy, and protect our national security.
America's need to continue to fuel our economic recovery and
guarantee future success will require us to produce ever greater
amounts of energy to keep up with the demand.
You can see from this chart, according to the Department of Energy,
we have a huge gap between our domestic energy production and our
overall energy consumption right now. What's more, between now and
2020, we will have to increase energy production by more than 30
percent just to keep up with growing demand.
This looming energy crisis requires us to enact a comprehensive
energy policy, the likes of which we have never had before in this
country: a policy that harmonizes energy and environmental policies,
acknowledging that the economy and the environment are vitally
intertwined; a policy that won't cause prices to spike, hurting the
elderly, the disabled and low-income families as we experienced in the
winter of 2000-2001, particularly in the Midwest; a policy that won't
cripple the engines of commerce that fund the research that will yield
future environmental protection technologies, technologies that can be
shared with developing nations that currently face severe environmental
crises; and, most importantly, a policy that protects our national
security and prevents market volatility by increasing domestic energy
production.
The current situation in the Middle East and the resulting price
increases we have seen at the pump give us a taste of how badly we need
an energy policy and how much we need to turn towards domestic sources
to meet that goal. However, as we rely on our own strengths for the
answers to the coming energy crisis and though we are blessed with
large reserves of oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear fuel, as well as
access to renewable sources of energy, we must remember that no single
source of domestic energy is sufficient to meet all our Nation's energy
needs. That means we have to broaden our base of energy sources and not
put all our eggs in one basket.
If we were some other nation, diversifying our energy supply might be
a great challenge, but God has blessed the United States of America
with resources to solve this problem. Conservation has proven
successful in reducing energy demand. So often people say: We aren't
doing enough to conserve. We are. By incorporating technology
breakthroughs into the production of energy-efficient automobiles,
high-efficiency homes, more efficient appliances and machinery,
conservation has succeeded in saving us millions of dollars while
simultaneously improving our environment.
Let's look at this chart. According to the 1995 DOE report, the most
recent data available, from 1972 to 1991 the United States saved more
than $2.5 trillion through conservation. That is a lot of foreign oil
that we didn't have to buy. It is safe to say that we have saved much
more money since then, underscoring that conservation efforts deserve
our continued attention.
We currently rely very little on renewable sources of energy. In
fact, wind and solar together make up less than one-tenth of 1 percent
of our current total energy production. Additionally, they are
expensive and heavily subsidized. In fact, the average cost per
kilowatt hour of electricity from a newly installed windmill is 5 cents
compared to 2 cents per kilowatt from a coal-fired facility.
On top of this, wind and solar cannot be stored, creating reliability
problems and making it difficult to spread our costs out predictably
over time.

[[Page S2792]]

Currently, total renewables production, which includes geothermal,
solar, wind, hydro and biomass, reaches only 8 percent of our overall
domestic energy production. We should work to increase that, however,
since these forms of energy are environmentally friendly and because
they can help reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources. However,
we also must be realistic about our challenge. Because renewables make
up such a small piece of our overall energy picture today, they don't
have the capacity to meet our needs in the timeframe we are facing. A
sudden, forced shift in these sources would severely strain their
underdeveloped capacity, causing shortages and price spikes that would
hurt our economy.
For example, the requirement in the Daschle bill that utilities
generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources of
energy is estimated to increase the cost of electricity nationwide by 5
percent and a whole lot more in a State such as Ohio. Just as we
develop new sources of electricity generation, we should continue to
encourage development of new energy sources for transportation.
In the 1970s, the United States recognized the need for diverse
energy supply by expanding the use of natural gas, coal, nuclear,
hydropower, and other renewables, and decreasing the use of oil for
non-transportation uses. In 1978, non-transportation uses of oil in
this country accounted for almost 50 percent of our oil consumption.
Today, these non-transportation uses account for about one-third of our
oil consumption.

Though home heating oil use remains high in certain regions of the
country, particularly in the Northeast, consumers have increasingly
sought other sources such as natural gas to heat their home. In
addition, oil-fired powerplants are virtually nonexistent today in the
United States. Crude oil prices and policy priorities encouraged
substituting oil with other fuels for our non-transportation needs, but
oil products still make up 95 percent of the energy used for
transportation in the United States.
This number will not decrease unless fuel cells and hybrid vehicles
become more economically viable. But their day is coming. In fact, in a
recent meeting I had with General Motors executives in Detroit, I was
told that the company sees fuel cell technology becoming a viable power
source in the next 10 to 15 years. We are talking reality. It is not
science fiction to think that our children and grandchildren will see a
time when the roads are traveled by cars that run on hydrogen and give
off only water.
An amendment from the Finance Committee will help encourage the
development of these new technologies, providing an estimated $2.1
billion in tax incentives for the use of alternative vehicles and
alternative motor fuels.
We are doing a lot right now to try and move away from the use of oil
in this country and bring down our demand for it through research,
incentives, and many other things. Encouraging these new fuel sources
is worthwhile, but until they become more widely adopted and cost
effective, we will need to continue relying on oil to move people
across town and across the country and to move raw materials and
finished goods.
As I have mentioned, much of this oil comes from foreign sources. We
must increasingly compete against other nations for this oil. As demand
grows in response to the expanding world economy, the world economy is
growing. For example, at one time, China produced enough oil to meet
their domestic needs and still have some left over to export. Today,
they import oil.
What if there was an opportunity in the United States to greatly
reduce our dependence on foreign oil by using domestic sources of oil?
Fortunately, with the amendment offered by Senator Murkowski, we have
that opportunity. For over 40 years, Congress has debated whether or
not to develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. Senator
Stevens' words yesterday were eloquent and very informative on the
history of ANWR. I suggest that those who did not hear the Senator,
take the time to read his remarks in the Congressional Record. His
remarks should help them to make a better decision on this amendment.
As Senator Stevens reminded us, this debate is about our national and
economic security, but, sadly, the reality of ANWR has always been
misconstrued and used as a political tool. I have to say, those who are
opposed to allowing a small portion of ANWR to be used to help meet our
energy needs have done an admirable job in trying to sway public
opinion. Unfortunately, they have incorrectly painted this as a
wholesale abandonment of the Alaskan wilderness.
Thus far, they have had vast success in muddying the facts. Today,
though, I will make clear what ANWR is, what we are talking about, and
what limited, precise oil exploration in ANWR means for our Nation.
Created in 1960, ANWR was expanded to 19 million acres in 1980 by the
Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act. While designating 8
million of the original acreage as wilderness, Congress treated the 1.5
million acres of ANWR's Coastal Plain very differently. I am sure
Senator Stevens may remind us again, but back in 1980 Congress debated
the same subject. At that time, Mark Hatfield, the ranking minority
member and Henry Jackson, Chairman of the Energy Committee, wrote a
letter urging their colleagues to support exploration in ANWR because,
and I quote:

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

They also said that the issue:

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

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

. . . strikes a balance between protecting areas of great
beauty and value and allowing development of Alaska's vital
oil and gas and mineral and timber resources.

Section 1002 of the Act mandated a study of the Coastal Plain, or
1002 area, and its resources. After almost 7 years of researching the
wildlife and the impact of oil development, the study recommended full
development and described the area as ``the most outstanding petroleum
exploration target in the onshore United States.''

The report recommended full development of this area while also
stating that it is the most biologically productive part of ANWR. This
means that in 1987, when the report was issued, it was believed that
proper environmental steps, combined with technology, which is now 15
years old, would not significantly harm the wildlife.
However, the report did say that if the entire area were leased and
oil were found, then there would be major effects on the wildlife. But
no one here is talking about that. We are talking about 2,000 acres for
oil exploration--2,000 acres out of 1.5 million acres. That is less
than one-half of 1 percent of the total area.
This is one of the biggest misrepresentations about this debate. The
entire area of ANWR's Coastal Plain is about the size of the State of
South Carolina. To the casual observer, he or she thinks drilling means
drilling throughout the entire refuge, but it is really just a 2,000-
acre site. That is about the size of Dulles International Airport. If
you look at this map, you can see just how small the area is compared
to the vast wilderness of the Alaska wilderness and ANWR.
The two major concerns of the ANWR debate--and the issues that divide
the two sides--are the environment and oil. While we know a lot about
the wildlife and impact of oil development, we only have estimates
about oil because the prohibition on drilling prevents a definitive
answer to the question.
We know that the central Arctic caribou herd has grown from 3,000,
when development began at Prudhoe Bay, to as high as 23,000 caribou. We
know that development on Prudhoe Bay, which was discovered in 1967,
would be 64-percent smaller if built today. We know

[[Page S2793]]

that a drill pad that would have been 65 acres in 1977 can be less than
9 acres today. We know that Alaskan oil companies now build temporary
ice pads, roads, and airstrips instead of using gravel. We know that
the pictures in the commercials and magazines refer to ANWR as
``America's Serengeti.'' They must not be talking about the Coastal
Plain, for this area is a winter wasteland, where temperatures
regularly reach 70 degrees below zero for 9 months of the year, with 58
consecutive days of darkness.
We also know that the Coastal Plain is along the same geological
trend as the productive Prudhoe Bay, and it is the largest unexplored,
potentially productive onshore basin in the United States. But nobody
knows for sure what is under there because we are prohibited from
finding out.
In addition to the initial 1987 report, the Department of the
Interior has issued assessments in 1991, 1995, and 1998 based on
updated data from the U.S. Geological Survey. According to the USGS, it
is estimated that the Coastal Plain holds between 5.7 billion and 16
billion barrels of recoverable oil, with an expectancy of about 10.3
billion barrels. The Coastal Plain can hold more than that, though. For
example, the North Slope, was originally thought to contain 9 billion
barrels of oil, but it has produced 13 billion barrels to date.
What if there isn't any oil? We know that technology is so advanced
for Arctic drilling that there can be hardly, if any, environmental
damage from exploratory drilling. For example, an exploratory well
drilled in 1985 in the area adjacent to the Coastal Plain did not
affect the wildlife. If the area does have as much oil as estimated,
the benefit could be great. To put the numbers in perspective, Texas
has proven reserves of 5.3 billion barrels. There is a 95-percent
chance that ANWR will yield more oil than all of Texas and a 5-percent
chance that there is three times as much oil as in Texas.

One of the half-truths being spread by those opposed to this
amendment is that there is only 6 months of oil in the Coastal Plain.
This is misleading because it assumes no other sources of oil--no
imports, no other domestic supply--except from ANWR. The real truth is
that, according to the Department of Energy, ANWR's oil supply would
last between 30 to 60 years.
Last week, Iraq, one of the ``axis of evil'' nations, announced a
suspension of oil exports. Iraq supplies more than 9 percent of the 8.6
million barrels of oil we import every day. It is a longstanding U.S.
policy not to allow oil to be used as a political weapon. We cannot be
held hostage to external interests or pressures. Iraq's embargo last
week shows there are some countries that still think they can apply
pressure in this manner.
I am not upset at the fact Iraq shut its spigot because I have little
doubt we will make up whatever dropoff occurs from other sources.
Frankly, I think it is incredible that we send $24 million a week and
$4.5 billion a year to a nation that is clearly an enemy of the United
States and over which our military flies regular combat missions. It
doesn't make sense.
Iraq's action puts the embargo card back on the table as a weapon to
try to shape American opinion and Government policy. Who is to say
other leaders in the Middle East might not take the same step in the
future? We know who they are today. But who are they going to be
tomorrow, particularly in light of growing Muslim extremism. Some of my
colleagues may say since all our oil does not come from the Middle
East, we can look to other nations. That is true, and one such
supplier, Venezuela, is currently undergoing political and labor strife
which has a tremendous impact on its oil industry. Indeed, reports by
Venezuela's Industrial Council earlier this week indicated that 80
percent of the country's oil industry has been shut down. When Chavez
retook the Presidency, oil prices went up almost 5 percent out of fear
he will keep a tight rein on the production volume.
It is not out of the question to say our Nation may once again face
the long lines we experienced during the 1973 oil embargo. You would
have thought we would have learned our lesson and worked to develop
other oil. However, we have seen our oil imports rise from 35 percent
in 1973, and we are now at 58 percent. We have made very little
progress in achieving our energy independence in the nearly three
decades since the 1973 embargo.
We had the chance to make significant progress in 1995 when the
Senate approved exploratory drilling in ANWR. Unfortunately, President
Clinton vetoed the bill. Had he not, the Energy Information
Administration estimates that oil could have been flowing to us by as
early as next year.
When ANWR is developed, the Energy Information Agency projects that
peak production rates could range from 650,000 barrels to 1.9 million
barrels per day. The lowest of this estimate would replace the 613,000
barrels per day we imported from Iraq in 2000. The highest estimate
would replace 76 percent of the 2.5 million barrels a day we import
from the Persian Gulf in 2000.
It is very simple: We need to break our dependence on unreliable
foreign energy sources. If the enemies of America are willing to take
out the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, does anybody doubt that if
they had a chance to impact our energy supply, they would do it?

Shouldn't we be able to at least find out how much oil is in ANWR
especially with this commonsense environmentally sensitive amendment?
The amendment includes many environmental protections, such as seasonal
limitations, reclamation of land to its prior condition, use of the
best available technology--including ice roads, pads, and airstrips for
exploration, and more.
Our dependency on foreign nations also threatens our economic
security. Price shocks and manipulation from OPEC between 1979 to 1991
are estimated to have cost the U.S. economy about $4 trillion, while
petroleum imports cost the United States more than $55 billion a year
and account for over 50 percent of our trade deficit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, development of the Coastal Plain will
bring up to $350 billion into the U.S. economy and create up to 735,000
jobs at home. In my state of Ohio, the number of jobs created is
estimated at 52,000 for the petroleum industry and 31,000 for other
jobs, such as oilfield and pipeline equipment manufacturing,
telecommunications and computers, and engineering, environmental and
legal research. These are real jobs for the people in my State, in
spite of the fact we are so far away from Alaska.
The economic impact for oil development in Alaska is not a surprise;
we are experiencing it even today. It has meant a great deal to our
State and to many other States.
I also wish to point out that we have the support of Alaska's
citizens and elected officials. We have heard from both of Alaska's
U.S. Senators. We have heard from the Inupiat Eskimos who live and own
92,000 acres of Coastal Plain. Twenty years ago, they were opposed to
this, but now are for it.
We cannot continue to rely on unstable foreign sources to meet our
energy needs. The events of September 11 made it clear who our enemies
are, yet we continue to do business with them and support their
terrorist activities by buying oil from them. We know we have the
resources domestically to reduce our addiction to foreign oil. Now is
the time to tap them.
This amendment is economically sound, it is environmentally
responsible, and it responds to our long-term national security needs.
It is my fervent hope that my colleagues will recognize these facts and
support this amendment to allow for oil exploration in ANWR, just as
they did in 1995 and 1980.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7
minutes prior to the Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized for 7 minutes.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this
amendment, which would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
oil development. I believe drilling in ANWR is a

[[Page S2794]]

short-term, environmentally unconscionable fix that fails to address
our Nation's real malady: Our dependence not just on foreign oil, but
our overdependence on oil itself.
I believe there is no way to justify drilling in ANWR in the name of
national security. Oil extracted from the wildlife refuge would not
reach refineries for 7 to 10 years and would never satisfy more than 2
percent of our Nation's oil demands at any one time.
Thus, it would have no discernable short-term or long-term impact on
the price of fuel or our increasing dependence on OPEC imports. Put
another way, the amount of economically recoverable oil would
temporarily increase our domestic reserves by only one-third of 1
percent, which would not even make a significant dent in our imports,
much less influence world prices by OPEC.
An ``ANWR is the Answer'' energy policy fails to recognize the
fundamental truth: we cannot drill our way to energy independence.
The United States is home to only 3 percent of the world's known oil
reserves, and unless we take steps necessary to increase the energy
efficiency of our economy and, in particular, the transportation
sector, this Nation's consumers will remain subject to the whims of the
OPEC cartel. To suggest that drilling in the Arctic is the answer is to
ignore the facts and creates a complacency that truly jeopardizes our
economic and energy security.
Furthermore, I believe the recent U.S. Geological Survey report on
the biological value of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal
Plain and the impacts of oil and gas development on resident species
reinforces what many of us have argued from the beginning. Drilling in
the Arctic represents a real and significant threat to a wide range of
species including caribou, snow geese, musk oxen, and other wildlife.
This report represents sound science. It was peer reviewed and
summarizes more than 12 years of research.

In stark contrast, the Department of the Interior's recent release of
a new two-page memo, which purports to examine the impacts of ``more
limited drilling'' in 300,000 acres of ANWR, was prepared in 6 days.
One report, 12 years of research; the other report, just 6 days.
Essentially, in this report the administration decided to dispute its
own scientists and say drilling in ANWR was acceptable. I disagree with
that.
Rather than drilling in ANWR, I believe our task is to craft a
balanced policy that will permanently strengthen our national security
and energy independence. We need an energy policy that endows America
with a strong and independent 21st century energy system by recognizing
fuel diversity, energy efficiency, the great assets that distributed
generation will create in the future, and environmentally sound
domestic production as a permanent solution to our Nation's enduring
energy needs. We are making some progress on these goals within this
bill.
Obviously, one of the most important provisions the Senate has thus
far debated involves the expedited construction of a natural gas
pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 States. There are at
least 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in existing Alaskan fields,
and building a pipeline to the continental United States would create
thousands of jobs, provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry,
and help prevent our Nation from becoming dependent on foreign natural
gas, from many of the same Middle Eastern countries from which we
import oil.
It is very important that we make this investment in new natural gas
and in job development. Adopting energy efficient technologies can
significantly advance our national and economic security. For example,
a Department of Energy report, and these are amazing figures, but this
Department of Energy report stated that automakers commonly use low-
friction tires on new cars to help them comply with fuel economy
standards. However, because there are no standards or efficiency labels
for replacement tires, most consumers unwittingly purchase less
efficient tires when the originals wear out, even though low-friction
tires would only cost a few dollars more per tire and actually would
save the average American driver about $100 worth of fuel over the
40,000 mile life of the tires.
Fully phased in, better replacement tires would cut gasoline
consumption of all U.S. vehicles by about 3 percent, saving our Nation
over 5 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years, the same amount
the U.S. Geological Survey says can be recovered from ANWR.
Unfortunately, I also believe we have thus far missed the single most
important opportunity in this bill for truly enhancing our nation's
energy security and minimizing our foreign oil dependence. That is, we
have missed the opportunity to put in place real and meaningful CAFE
standards, which would increase the efficiency of our Nation's vehicles
and decrease our foreign oil dependence. I continue to believe the only
way to permanently ensure our Nation's security is to look beyond 19th
century policies that continue our country's reliance on extraction and
combustion of fossil fuels.
Now is the time to launch the transition to a new, 21st century
system of distributed generation based on renewable energy sources and
environmentally responsible fuel cells. Imagine today if a significant
portion of American homes and businesses produced their electricity
from these renewables.
I think about the last crisis in the 1970s when our overdependence on
foreign oil and high prices changed the dynamic in how many homes were
heated with oil and made significant reductions. Our country needs to
make those same changes today.
These are policies that will make our energy system truly secure and
independent. I agree our national security depends in part on the
United States becoming less dependent on foreign energy resources, and
that we must develop more domestic supplies and a better balance of
renewable energy that will also make us less dependent on nonrenewable
fossil fuels. It would be a mistake to look at this ANWR debate in only
one way, and to not invest in our country's new sources of energy.
Therefore, I cannot support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose it in the name of national security, to move ahead onto new
energy sources and a 21st century energy policy.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 30 minutes as
allocated under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, with all due respect to my dear friend
and wonderful colleague from Washington, I rise to oppose the position
she has outlined and to support the amendment by the Senator from
Alaska. I think it is very important for us to spend time on this
issue. One of the previous speakers said: Why would we spend so much
time on this issue? Why would the Senate, all 100 Members of the
greatest deliberative body in the world today, spend so much time on
this issue?
The answer is because this is not a small matter. This is not an
insignificant debate. This is not a minor point. This is a major point
in the debate on the future of this Nation and in what our energy
policy is going to look like and how we can strengthen and improve upon
it.
It is said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But given what
I have heard in this Chamber, I say that balance must be in the eyes of
the beholder as well because those of us both for and against this
amendment continue to say we are for a balanced policy. Yet we argue
the different aspects of what balance really is. So I am going to give
it one more shot by saying what I think balance is.
The Senators from Alaska have done a magnificent job of making clear
that we are not for drilling everywhere; we support a balance.
When this area was created, the areas in dark yellow, light yellow
and green, there was a balance in the creation of this piece of land,
land that is as large as the State of South Carolina. Here we have a
balance: part of a refuge set aside for wildlife of all kinds, and a
small part where we could drill. Why would we want to drill here?
Because it is the largest potential onshore oilfield in the entire
United States. It is not a minor field. It has major resources of

[[Page S2795]]

oil potentially, as well as gas. So a balance was struck. A deal of
sorts was created.
We said let's set aside a huge piece of land for a refuge, for a
wilderness area, and then let's set aside a part of it to drill.
The reason I feel so strongly about opening this section of ANWR to
drilling--and it took me a while to come to this position because I
have heard a lot of other arguments--is because of this precedent I
feel this will set. If we overturn the original dual intent of ANWR and
block all drilling there, where will we stop? Instead of adding to
production in the United States, either on our shores or off of our
shores, we keep taking places off of the map for production. We are not
going in the right direction, and we need to change course. That is why
this is so important.
I have said this 100 times. The Senator from Alaska has said it, the
senior Senator from Louisiana did a magnificent job of saying it this
morning, but let me also quote from a person we all respect--both
Democrats and Republicans--Richard Holbrooke, whom we know well. I
would say there would be no disagreement in this Chamber that this man
is an expert in international relations and national security policy. I
will read what he said in February this year:

Our greatest single failure over the last 25 years--

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

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

Why does he say this? Because of headlines such as these: ``Suicide
Bomber Kills 6 as Powell's Talks Begin,'' ``Chavez Reclaims Power in
Venezuela,'' ``Powell Meets Arafat, Makes Little Progress.''

Mr. Holbrooke knows the uncertainty of the Middle East and we are all
learning of the difficulties in Venezuela. He represented our country
in the United Nations. He knows what it takes for America to be strong
to get to the negotiating table free to make the best decisions we can.
He knows our energy policy is in lockstep with our national security
policy.
We have a chance to reverse course and not make the same mistake
again. Let's have a balance.
Again, we have in ANWR the original intent to have some refuge area,
some wilderness area, and some drilling area. Not all drilling. Not
drilling everywhere, but where we can. An area for wildlife, for
general recreation, and one for the bottom line, businesses, workers,
companies, and our economy. This is balanced. Instead, we get no more
drilling, a moratorium.
Let me show the other moratoria in the country. In addition to Alaska
being taken off the map, we have--Democrats and Republicans are both
guilty here--imposed moratoria along the entire east and west coasts of
the United States. There are places in the interior States where,
because of rules, regulations, slow permitting, lawsuits, and filings
on behalf of certain groups, the production has slowed down, forcing us
to continue to increase our imports, year after year. These imports do
not always come from friendly nations, from nations that share our
values, but sometimes from nations that are in direct opposition to
U.S. foreign policy and the democratic values for which we stand.
My second point is, are we asking something of Alaska that we have
not asked of other States? The senior Senator from Louisiana showed
this chart, and Senator Murkowski showed it earlier. It is worth
showing again. We are only asking to allow drilling in the kind of
places where other States are already allowing it. Drilling is taking
place in nine refuges in Texas; 12 in Louisiana; 1 in Mississippi, 1 in
Alabama. You can see the rest. These are ongoing drilling operations in
refuges.
Someone in my office the other day, a great labor leader from
Louisiana, asked: Senator, why are people against drilling? I was
trying to explain. I said: Some people said this area is the last great
place. He said: Would you tell them America is full of great places?
Louisiana has great places.
I loved when he said, ``America is full of great places.'' There are
great places in all of our States. We will preserve them. We will fight
to keep them wilderness when we can. But when we refuse to tap domestic
sources of oil and gas that would help our Nation, help our economy,
create jobs, and release us from our dangerous dependency on imported
oil and gas, it just makes no sense to me.
We have been spending a lot of time on this issue because it is at
the heart of the debate. We have a weak production policy and, I might
say, a weak conservation policy. That is the wrong direction. We need
to turn around and go the other way: Strong production and strong
conservation. If we don't, I predict there will be a huge price to pay.
We will pay it one way or another, either through the lives of
servicemen, or through compromised foreign policy. Americans know this.
There is no free lunch. We don't seem to know that inside the beltway,
but working Americans of all stripes, of all political backgrounds,
understand that. It is important. It is about balance. And we need it.

People say ANWR will not produce a lot of oil, that it will not come
online for several years--and I agree it will take time. But there is
enough oil, even using the lowest estimates, to replace the oil we get
from Saudi Arabia for about 8 to 10, maybe 8 to 12 years.
Ask the American people, Would you like to drill on our own land,
land that we control, land that we set regulations on, and that we can
depend on, or do you want to continue to import oil from Saudi Arabia
for 15 years? I don't think there would be many Americans who would
choose the latter.
The third good reason is jobs. We continue to make decisions in this
Congress that keep Americans from getting good paying jobs. Every time
they want to apply for a job, there may as well be a sign that says:
Congress doesn't think we should drill. So go look elsewhere for work.
I don't know about the Presiding Officer, but I have thousands of
people in Louisiana who want to work. I have heard Senators say 60,000
jobs doesn't matter. This Senator believes 60,000 jobs is a lot of
jobs. We should allow more production, which will lead to more than
60,000 jobs. We should promote investments in conservation and
alternative fuels. There are lots of jobs, in science and other high-
end jobs, associated with alternative fuels. Why not have good jobs for
both production and conservation? Why turn down these job-making
opportunities when it is so important to produce jobs for people in
Louisiana, for people in Alaska, for people in Delaware, for people in
New Mexico? I don't understand it.
We can create good, skilled jobs, where people can make a very good
living working 40 or 50 hours, overtime, onshore, offshore, whereby
they can buy a home, contribute to their community, send their children
to get an equal or better education than they did. I think it is very
important.
The fourth reason we need to support drilling in ANWR besides the
fact we need it, besides the fact it is balanced, besides the fact we
are doing it in many other States in the same way we would be asking
Alaska to contribute, besides the fact that it means thousands and
thousands of good-paying jobs that people in America would like and
need at this time, it is the right thing to do for our environment. I
mean that sincerely. I know I said some things on the floor about some
environmental organizations, and I believe their positions, with all
due respect to the great work they have done, are leading this country
in the wrong direction.

I work very well with environmental groups in Louisiana and many of
our environmental groups around the Nation. But I will say it again:
When we drill and extract resources in America, we can do it in the
most environmentally sensitive way in the world. Why? Because we have
the strictest rules and regulations.
Even the former executive director of the Sierra Club agrees, and he
is on the record saying that by pushing production out of America, all
we are doing is damaging the world's environment.
We have the best rules and the best laws. We have a free press and
the ability, to punish those who pollute the environment.
That does not happen in other places around the world, places without
the same confidence in the law that we can have here in the United
States. So the pro-environmental position--and I

[[Page S2796]]

mean this sincerely--is to drill and explore and extract resources
where we can watch it, where we can control it and where we can make
sure it is done correctly.
If I am wrong I would like someone to come to the floor and tell me:
Senator, you are not thinking clearly about this.
Apart from the many troubled parts of the world where production is
taking place, I don't know where else we would drill. And the saddest
part of that to me, or the most hypocritical part of that to me, is
that we consume more than everyone else. If we were not consuming that
much, I would say fine. But we go to poorer countries with less
infrastructure, fewer rules, and weaker laws and enforcement, not
because they need the oil but because we need it. And we degrade the
environment and support illegitimate regimes because we will not drill
in our own country. I do not understand it.
I will make another point about Louisiana. I have heard some of my
colleagues come to the floor and say: I will not drill in ANWR, but boy
I will come drill in the Gulf of Mexico.
I want to show the map of these States that are net producers of
energy. There are only a few of us. There are only 15. There are only
15 States in the entire country, just 15, that produce at least 50
percent of the energy they consume. You can see the States represented
here.
We love all of our States, wish them all well, and we are all part of
this great Union, but the red States on this chart produce less than
half the energy they consume, which means they do not produce oil, they
do not produce gas, they do not produce nuclear, they do not produce
wind, solar, or hydro, but they want their lights to come on whenever
they want and they want to power their businesses and industries.
Nobody can look at this map and say this is fair. I know there are
products produced in some States that other States do not produce. I am
clear. But there are no moratoria on growing corn, no moratoria on
growing cotton. People are not opposed to that or think it harms the
environment to grow corn or grow wheat. But we have a policy growing in
this country that we do not want to produce anything but we want to
continue to consume.
I am for strong conservation measures. I voted against the proposal
to reduce CAFE standards, not because I don't agree with the goal, but
because the method was wrong. It would have cost too many jobs in my
State. There is a better way to get there. I would vote for even more
stringent measures but not that particular measure.

There are strong conservation measures that I and many Members
support. But this attitude has to change. We have to have an attitude
among all of these States that you either reduce your consumption
significantly or you decide how to produce the energy. You have your
choice. You can produce it any way you want. But what you cannot do is
sit on the sideline, complain and complain, prevent other States from
drilling, and then just continue to consume.
I have an amendment. I am thinking about offering this. I hope people
who vote against ANWR will think about ways we can encourage our
States, in a fair way, to make their own choices about how they would
like to generate more energy or consume less, and to put it in balance,
so our Nation can truly achieve energy independence. I hope we can do
that.
Let me show one more chart. This is the Gulf of Mexico. You can see
the red areas here where there is active drilling. We have been doing
this now for 50 years. We have made some mistakes. I am the first one
to admit it. We didn't know all the things that we know now back in the
1940s and 1950s.
We did not have the science and the technology. But we have made
tremendous progress, and we in Louisiana are happy to produce hundreds
of millions of barrels of oil and gas, and host pipelines that light up
the Midwest and New York and California. We want to do it. We are proud
of the industry, and we are getting better and better at it every day.
But it is grossly unfair for our State, and Mississippi and Alabama
and Texas, to bear the brunt of this production when other States don't
want to produce. Then, to pour salt on the wound, we get no portion of
the revenues that are generated. Taxpayers may not realize this, but
the royalties that come into the Treasury every time you produce a
natural resource can keep our personal income taxes lower.
When we do not drill, royalties do not come into the Treasury, so
taxes have to go up to support Government. So a fifth really good
reason to explore natural resources is so we can bring money into the
Treasury, again in a very balanced approach, and keep taxes minimal for
taxpayers.
However, all that money that goes to the Federal Treasury right now,
from production in Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, is not
shared with those States. Since 1950, we sent $120 billion to the
Federal Treasury. Louisiana, which has produced the lion's share of the
offshore production for the whole Nation, has not received a penny.
This is a true story. I know my time is almost to the end, but I am
going to end with a couple of points on this. Two years ago the mayor
of Grande Isle, a tiny little place down here at the foot of Louisiana,
told me of a lot of their unique problems.
The mayor called me and said: Senator, I have a problem. I don't have
a sewer system and a water system that is able to bring the fresh water
that I need. I have children in school drinking rainwater out of a
barrel, dipping a cup into a barrel, drinking the rainwater, because we
do not have the right sewer and water system. Because it is a small
town, they do not have the necessary resources. I was sitting in my
office in Washington thinking about these children dipping that cup and
drinking that rainwater. I know if they just looked up and out just a
few miles they could see a rig, producing the Nation's oil and gas. The
money it produces is not going to help them get a sewer system which
they desperately need. It will not help these children get a road so
that when it floods or the weather is bad they can get to school. That
money is coming all the way up to Washington for us to spend on all the
States in the Nation.

When I ask to have a sewer system for them, I have to come back, ask
and plead for money from the budget to get the kids in Grande Isle a
drinking water system. That isn't fair.
I will propose and will continue to propose that we have more
drilling and that the communities that host drilling share in those
revenues. We need infrastructure for the people and families living
there, for the workers and the businesses that are participating, and
for the associated environmental impacts, which can be minimal.
Sometimes they are a little more challenging. But with good science and
the old yankee ingenuity and southern ingenuity, we can get that done
for the people of our State.
In conclusion, I have given five good reasons why this is so
important.
Let me close by reading something out of the Atlantic Monthly, ``The
Tales of a Tyrant'', written by Mark Bowden, author of ``Black Hawk
Down.'' We are familiar with the incident. Many of us have seen the
movie. It is very riveting. I would like to read about the kind of
people from whom we are getting our oil.
Wearing his military uniform, he walked slowly to the lectern
and stood behind two microphones, gesturing with a big cigar.
His body and broad face seemed weighted down with sadness.
There had been a betrayal, he said. A Syrian plot. There were
traitors among them. Then Saddam took a seat, and Muhyi Abd
al-Hussein Mashhadi, the secretary-general of the Command
Council, appeared from behind a curtain to confess his own
involvement in the putsch. He had been secretly arrested and
tortured days before; now he spilled out dates, times, and
places where the plotters had met. Then he started naming
names. As he fingered members of the audience one by one,
armed guards grabbed the accused and escorted them from the
hall. When one man shouted that he was innocent, Saddam
shouted back, ``Itla! Itla!''--``Get out! Get out!'' (Weeks
later, after secret trials, Saddam had the mouths of the
accused taped shut so that they could utter no troublesome
last words before their firing squads.) when all of the sixty
``traitors'' had been removed, Saddam again took the podium
and wiped tears from his eyes as he repeated the names of
those who had betrayed him. Some in the audience, too, were
crying--perhaps out of fear. This chilling performance had
the desired effect. Everyone in the hall now understood
exactly how things would work in Iraq from that day forward.

If we cannot get enough of the Senate to vote in favor of this
amendment,

[[Page S2797]]

in spite of articles like this, because of movies that we see, because
of headlines like this, and the disruptions not only in the Mideast but
in Venezuela, I don't know what will make the Members of this Senate
decide that we must produce where we can produce. We can set aside
lands where we can set aside land, create jobs for our people and
security for our Nation.
I am giving the best I can give. I don't think we have the votes. But
I submit this for the Record, and hope people will reconsider their
positions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, under the unanimous consent, I believe
the Senator from Wisconsin is the next Senator to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Wisconsin is
recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to oppose the amendments
offered by my colleagues from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski and Mr. Stevens. I
oppose these amendments for several reasons, and I rise to share my
concerns with my colleagues.
Energy security is an important issue for America, and one which my
Wisconsin constituents take very seriously. The bill before us
initiates a national debate about the role of domestic production of
energy resources versus foreign imports, about the tradeoffs between
the need for energy and the need to protect the quality of our
environment, and about the need for additional domestic efforts to
support improvements in our energy efficiency and the wisest use of our
energy resources. The President joined that debate with the release of
his national energy strategy earlier this Congress. The questions
raised are serious, and differences in policy and approach are
legitimate.
I join with the other Senators today who are raising concerns about
these amendments. Delegating authority to the President to opening the
refuge to oil drilling does little to address serious energy issues
that have been raised in the last few months.
Though proponents of drilling in the refuge will say that it can be
done by only opening up drilling on 2,000 acres of the refuge, that is
simply not the case. The President will decide whether the entire 1\1/
2\ million acres of the Coastal Plain of the refuge will be open for
oil and gas leasing and exploration. Exploration and production wells
can be drilled anywhere on the coastal plain.
I infer that when proponents say that only 2,000 acres will be
drilled, they are referring to the language in the amendment which
states, and I am paraphrasing, ``the Secretary shall . . . ensure that
the maximum amount of surface acreage covered by production and support
facilities, including airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms
or piers for support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the
Coastal Plain.''
That limitation is not a clear cap on overall development. It does
not cover seismic or other exploration activities, which have had
significant effects on the Arctic environment to the west of the
Coastal Plain. Seismic activities are conducted with convoys of
bulldozers and ``thumper trucks'' over extensive areas of the tundra.
Exploratory oil drilling involves large rigs and aircraft.
The language does not cover the many miles of pipelines snaking above
the tundra, just the locations where the vertical posts that support
the pipelines literally touch the ground. In addition, this
``limitation'' does not require that the two thousand acres of
production and support facilities be in one contiguous area. As with
the oil fields to the west of the arctic refuge, development could and
would be spread out over a very large area.
Indeed, according to the United States Geological Survey, oil under
the Coastal Plain is not concentrated in one large reservoir but is
spread in numerous small deposits. To produce oil from this vast area,
supporting infrastructure would stretch across the Coastal Plain. And
even if this cap were a real development cap, what would this mean? Two
thousand acres is a sizable development area. The development would be
even more troubling as it is located in areas that are actually
adjacent to the 8 million acres of wilderness that Congress has already
designated in the arctic refuge which share a boundary with the Coastal
Plain.
The delegation of authority to open the refuge is controversial, and
make no mistake, it will generate lengthy debate.
I have also heard concerns from the constituents in my state who have
paid dearly for large and significant jumps in gasoline prices.
Invoking the ability to drill in response to a national emergency does
not add to gasoline supplies today, nor does it do anything to address
the immediate need of the Federal Government to respond to fluctuations
in gas prices and help expand refining capacity. In some instances,
there were reports of prices between $3 to as high as $8 per gallon in
Wisconsin on September 11 and 12, 2001. The Department of Energy
immediately assured me that energy supplies were adequate following the
terrorist attacks, and these increases are being investigated as
possible price gouging by the Department of Energy and the State of
Wisconsin. With adequate energy resources, constituents need assurances
that these unjustified jumps can be monitored and controlled.
And I, along with many other Senators, have constituents who are
concerned about the environmental effects of this amendment, and what
it says about our stewardship of lands of wilderness quality.
I also oppose opening the refuge for what it will do to the Energy
bill as a whole. This measure contains important provisions that we
need to enact into law. In light of the tragic events of September 11,
a key element of any new energy security policy should be to secure our
existing energy system--from production to distribution--from the
threat of future terrorist attack. Americans deserve to know that the
Senate has protected the existing North Slope oil rigs and pipelines
from attack. Americans deserve to know that the Senate has considered
measures to reduce the vulnerability of above ground electric
transmission and distribution by providing needed investments in siting
of below ground direct current cables, in researching better
transmission technologies, and in protecting transformers and switching
stations. Americans want us to review thoroughly the security of our
Nation's domestic nuclear powerplant safety regimes to ensure that they
continue to operate well. Finally, Americans living downstream from
hydroelectric dams want to know that they are safe from terrorist
initiated dam breaching. We must assure them that this existing
infrastructure is secure.

These were issues that the House did not address on August 2, 2001,
when it passed its bill, because the terrorist attacks of September 11,
were obviously unthinkable at that time. These are issues that drilling
in the refuge does not address. But we are a changed country in
response to September 11, and these are very real issues today, issues
that must be addressed.
In addition, there have been significant technological changes in the
last few months that can help us reduce our dependence upon foreign
oil. On September 19, 2001, a model year 2002 General Motors Yukon that
can run on either a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent
conventional gasoline or conventional gasoline alone rolled off the
line in my hometown of Janesville, WI. The 2002 model year Tahoes,
Suburbans and Denalis with 5.3 liter engines will be able to run on
either fuel. But while my constituents could buy a vehicle that can run
on a higher percentage of ethanol fuel, there isn't a place open today
to buy that fuel in Wisconsin. We could go a long way under this bill
to reducing dependence on foreign oil by using domestic energy crops
and biomass more wisely, and we should pass this bill to reflect our
new technological capacity.
I also oppose this amendment because there is a lingering veil of
concern that special corporate interests would benefit over our
citizens by this amendment. Oil companies receive a good deal of
financial assistance in the form of tax breaks from the Federal
Government to encourage development of domestic oil supplies. I have
spoken out, for example, against the percentage depletion allowance in
the mining of hardrock minerals, and its use in the oil sector dwarfs
the hardrock tax break.
This longstanding tax break allows those in the oil business to, in
effect, write off all of their losses. The ostensible reason for the
depletion allowance is to encourage exploration of oil

[[Page S2798]]

drilling sites, which, presumably, no one would do without such a tax
break.
The oil industry argues that other businesses are allowed to
depreciate the costs of their manufacturing. But this tax break goes
well beyond the costs of deducting capital equipment. For example, a
garment manufacturer can only deduct the original cost of a sewing
machine, whereas an oil well can produce tax deductions as long as it
keeps producing oil. So this deduction can amount to many times the
cost of the original drilling and exploration. The depletion allowance
is currently set at 15 percent of gross income.
The current cost to the U.S. Treasury for the depletion allowance
exceeds $1 billion a year. This deduction can, in some cases, amount to
100 percent of the company's net income, which means that all
profitability comes from Government tax subsidies.
But just in case there is anyone in the oil industry not enjoying
sufficient profitability, Congress has come up with a number of other
cushions against the risks of capitalism. Big Oil can immediately
deduct 70 percent of the costs of setting up an operation of the so-
called intangible drilling cost deduction. Other industries have to
deduct such costs over the life of the operation, so this amounts to
another interest-free loan from the Treasury. It also amounts to a
double deduction, since the depletion allowance is supposed to
compensate the poor oil producer for the costs of risking a dry well.
Repealing this deduction would save more than $2.5 billion over the
next 5 years.
Another tax subsidy encourages oil companies to go after oil reserves
that are more difficult than usual to extract, such as those that have
already been mostly depleted, or that contain especially viscous crude.
This, of course, is more expensive than normal oil drilling. Thus the
``enhanced oil recovery'' credit helps to subsidize those extra costs.
The net effect of this is that we taxpayers are paying for domestic oil
that costs almost twice as much as foreign supplies.
The combined effect of the depletion allowance, the intangible
drilling cost deduction, the enhanced oil recovery credit, and other
subsidies can sometimes exceed 100 percent of the value of the energy
produced by the subsidized oil. This makes no economic sense at all. I
make these points because the taxpayers already give the oil sector a
great deal of assistance, and now we are being asked to give up
additional public lands as well.
Before we allow the President to open more public lands, I think we
should be mindful of the help these industries are already getting.
I also am concerned about the effect of a decision to open the refuge
to oil drilling on resources that we have already designated for
special protection. The 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
contains 8 million acres of wilderness that Congress has already
designated. The amendment proposes to essentially trade wilderness
designation for other areas in the refuge, 1.5 million acres in the
southern portion of the refuge for the 1.5-million-acre Coastal Plain.
The existing wilderness areas in the refuge, however, are immediately
adjacent to the Coastal Plain. I am concerned that the President would
permit drilling on the Coastal Plain of the refuge before Congress
considers whether or not the Coastal Plain should be designated as
wilderness. Establishment of drilling on the Coastal Plain would be
allowing a use that is generally considered to be incompatible with
areas designated as wilderness under the Wilderness Act. We have had
very little discussion about the effect of drilling in the refuge on
the wilderness areas that we have already designated. I want colleagues
to be aware that the drilling question threatens not only our ability
to make future wilderness designations in the Coastal Plain but also
could endanger areas that we have already designated as wilderness in
the public trust.
Colleagues should keep in mind that the criteria established in this
amendment that the President must certify in his determination to open
of the Coastal Plain as a source of oil do not include any new
developments or changes in the geological information or economics that
affect potential development of Arctic resources. The United States
Geological Survey has already reconsidered those factors in its 1998
reassessment of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain's oil potential.
Rather, the current discussion, in my view, is prompted by the rhetoric
and opportunistic efforts of those interests that have long advocated
drilling in the Arctic Refuge, to exploit the current response with
regard to terrorism.

If drilling may impair our ability to make a decision about the
present and future wilderness qualities of the refuge, if the refuge
does not contain as much oil as we thought, and if opening the Coastal
Plain to drilling may do little to affect our current domestic prices,
why, then, are we considering doing this? The facts don't point toward
drilling in the refuge: the refuge may not contain as much oil as we
think, and opening the Coastal Plain to drilling may have only a minor
effect on our current domestic prices.
I raise these issues because I have grave concerns about the
arguments that oil drilling and environmental protection are
compatible. I traveled, a while ago, through the Niger Delta region of
Nigeria by boat, where I observed firsthand the environmental
devastation caused by the oil industry. The terrible stillness of an
environment that should be teeming with life made a very powerful
impression on me. These are the same multinational companies that have
access to the same kinds of technologies, and though they are operating
in a vastly different regulatory regime, I was profoundly struck by the
environmental legacy of oil development in another ecologically rich
coastal area.
For these reasons, I oppose this amendment. I appreciate the
fundamental concern that we need to develop a new energy strategy for
this country. I do disagree strongly, however, with drilling in this
location, which I feel is deserving of wilderness designation. I think
this bill achieves its objectives without damaging the refuge, and I
encourage colleagues to oppose these amendments.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the majority leader has authorized me to
announce there will be no rollcall votes this evening.
I would like to make a unanimous consent request. I have spoken to
both managers of the bill. We have, in the unanimous consent queue that
is now established, Senator Dorgan speaking for 20 minutes. Senator
Dorgan is not going to speak. So in place of that 20 minutes, I ask
unanimous consent to amend the order to put in Senator Stabenow for 10
minutes and Senator Murray for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am continually amazed by the
ability--and I am sorry my friend from Wisconsin has left the Chamber--
to generalize because that is what we are doing here. There is a
generalization that somehow the oil industry's application in Africa is
perhaps applicable to Alaska. These tactics I find unacceptable
because, first of all, we have invited many Members of this body to
come up and see for themselves.
You might not like oilfields. That is the business of each and every
Member. But the best oilfield in the world is Prudhoe Bay. It is 30-
year-old technology. What bothers me about this general criticism is
nobody seems to care where oil comes from as long as they get it. The
Senator from Wisconsin generalized on several aspects, implying that
somehow the limitation in this bill of a 2,000-acre disturbance was
broader than that.
Let me read what is in the bill. It ensures that the maximum amount
of surface acreage covered by production and support facilities,
including airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for
support pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the Coastal Plain. I
don't know what could be more understood than that statement.
Furthermore, to suggest that exploration is a permanent footprint on
the land begs the issue. Here is what exploration looks like in the
summertime on a particular area that was drilled. The

[[Page S2799]]

reality will show you that the footprint is certainly manageable. To
suggest somehow that that particular activity, because of the advanced
technology, is incompatible with this area is really selling American
ingenuity, technology, and American jobs short.
The Senator from Wisconsin didn't indicate at all the concern of the
jobs associated with this. He didn't concern himself as to where we
would get the oil. He simply said he didn't think it should come from
this area. He talked about the flow of technology, refuge and
wilderness.
Let me show you the map one more time. It has been pointed out again
and again, but perhaps some Members are not watching closely enough.
They simply assume that the ANWR Coastal Plain is wilderness. Congress
specifically designated it as a specific area outside the wilderness.
It is the 1002. Only Congress can open it. It is the Coastal Plain.
Within ANWR there are almost 8.5 million acres of wilderness. There
are 9 million acres of refuge and 1.5 million in the Coastal Plain.
What we proposed--and nobody has mentioned--is the creation of another
1.5 million acres of wilderness.
It is time that Members, before they come to the Chamber, familiarize
themselves with what is in the amendment. It is a 2,000-acre
limitation. Not too many people want to recognize that. They suggest
the entire area is at risk. That is ridiculous. We have an export ban.
Oil from the refuge cannot be exported. We have an Israeli exemption
providing an exemption for exports to Israel, under an agreement we
have had which expires in the year 2004. We are going to extend it to
the year 2014.
As I have indicated, we have a wilderness designation, an additional
1.5 million acres which would be added to the wilderness out of the
refuge. Here is the chart that shows that. We are adding to the
wilderness.
If that doesn't salve the conscience of some Members who believe that
is the price we should pay, I don't know what does.
Finally, we have a Presidential finding. This amendment does not open
ANWR. ANWR is opened only if the President certifies to Congress that
exploration, development, and production of the oil and gas resources
in ANWR's Coastal Plain are in the national economic and security
interests of the United States.
We leave all kinds of things up to the President around here.
Declarations of war are often, in effect, handled by the President
rather than the Congress--in the informal stage, at least. We think it
is a pretty important responsibility. We are giving that responsibility
to the President. Yet those from the other side, I don't know whether
they begrudge, distrust, or whatever, because it happens to be in the
President's energy proposal that we open up the area, and that is good
enough for me.

The amendment does not open ANWR. It will only be opened if the
President certifies to the Congress that exploration, development, and
production of oil and gas resources of the ANWR Coastal Plain are in
the national economic and security interests of this country.
What does that mean? It means different things to different people, I
suppose one might say. From the standpoint of at least my
interpretation from the former senior Senator from Oregon, Mark
Hatfield, the statement I opened with, I would vote to open up ANWR
anytime rather than send another young man or woman to fight a war in a
foreign land over oil. We did that in 1992. We lost 148 lives. At that
time, we were substantially less dependent on imported oil.
Make no mistake about it. Our minority leader, Senator Lott,
indicated in his statement the vulnerability of this country. Our
Secretary of State has not been able to bring the parties together in
the Mideast. It remains volatile. The situation in Venezuela is
unclear. The estimates are this Nation has lost 30 percent of the
available crude oil imports that we previously enjoyed--that is an
interruption--as a consequence of Saddam Hussein terminating production
for 30 days. We have reason to believe Colombia is on the verge of some
kind of an interruption which will terminate the oil through their
pipeline. This is a crisis.
The reason you don't see Members coming down here and saying, ``I
guess we had better do something about it now,'' is very clear. The
shoe is not pinching enough. The prices are not high enough. I would
hate to say there are not enough lives at risk.
Members could very well rue the day on this vote, recognizing the
influence of America's environmental community on this issue. I think
everyone who is familiar with oil development in Alaska understands
that we consume this oil that we produce in Alaska. It is jobs in
America. It is U.S. ships built in American shipyards. These are the
facts. By not recognizing the real commitment we have to doing business
in America, we are going to have to get that oil overseas.
When the Senator from Wisconsin generalizes about oilfields, he
doesn't give us the credit for the advanced technology moving from
Prudhoe Bay to the next major oilfield we found in Alaska called
Endicott. Endicott was 56 acres. It was the 10th largest producing
field. Those are the kinds of technological advancements we have in
this country.
As a consequence, I am prepared to continue to respond to those
inaccuracies. It is a shame we have to subject ourselves to the
pandering associated with interpretations that have nothing to do with
the extent of the risk associated to our national security at this
time.
The risk is very real. The risk may go beyond the risk associated
with just a political view of this issue. In this amendment, we are
giving the President of the United States the authority to make this
determination. I would like to think every Member of this body values
not only the President but his office to see what is in the best
interest of our country, our Nation, and our national security.

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.

____________________