Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a joint hearing has been scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Resources. The hearing will take place Thursday, November 16, 1995 at 11 a.m., in room 1324 of the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Alaska Natives Commission's report to Congress, transmitted in May 1994, on the status of Alaska's natives. Those wishing to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 20510. For further information, please call Brian Malnak at (202) 224- 8119 or Judy Brown at (202) 224-7556.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to applaud the unanimous passage of Senate Joint Resolution 29, a resolution which a bipartisan group, Senators Helms, Thomas, Simon, Robb, and I, introduced in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last March. The resolution expresses the sense of Congress with respect to the serious issue of North Korea-South Korea dialog, which was a key part of the United States-North Korea Agreed Framework on the nuclear issue signed last October. As my colleagues are aware, I have spoken extensively about the problems I see in the Agreed Framework, most recently on September 29 when I introduced S. 1293, a bill to provide for strict monitoring of and controls on U.S. spending on implementation of that agreement. There is no need to repeat those arguments here other than to stress the importance of passing that legislation as soon as possible. Today I am speaking about only one specific, and critical element of the Agreed Framework: the necessity of a meaningful North-South Korean dialog. Without such a dialog, I am convinced that implementation of the Agreed Framework is unworkable. That's why it is up to us to make sure the North Koreans fulfill that and all of their other responsibilities in the Agreed Framework. Passage of this resolution is also particularly timely when taking into account South Korean President Kim Young Sam's remarks to the Joint Meeting of Congress this summer. President Kim said: Peace on the Korean Peninsula can only take root through dialogue and cooperation between the South and the North, the two parties directly concerned. Without dialogue, nothing can be accomplished. I am thus grateful that both the President and Congress have stressed the central importance of the South-North dialogue. South Korea remains a trusted and loyal ally, and I believe we must follow a policy toward the Korean Peninsula that keeps South Korea's best interests in the forefront. [[Page S 16936]] Section III.(2) of the Agreed Framework specifies that ``[t]he DPRK will consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.'' The Agreed Framework goes on to say in section III.(3) that ``[t]he DPRK will engage in North-South dialogue, as this Agreed Framework will help create an atmosphere that promotes such dialogue.'' In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State Warren Christopher had this to say about these provisions: As part of the Framework, North Korea has pledged to resume dialogue with South Korea on matters affecting peace and security on the peninsula. We have made clear that resuming North-South dialogue is essential to the success of the Framework--so important that we were prepared to walk away from the Framework if North Korea had not been willing to meet that condition. I am gratified that the United States negotiators held firm at least on this issue, that is, including references to these two North-South issues. Nevertheless, and while I remain disturbed about many aspects of the Agreed Framework, I am concerned that the requirements of success or even progress in the North-South dialog were not spelled out in greater detail. For instance, what is the time line for progress? At what point will the United States stop fulfilling its commitments under the Agreed Framework if there has not been progress in North-South relations? It is this lack of specificity that led me and my colleagues to introduce this resolution. I know and appreciate that the administration is taking a firm public and private line that North- South dialog is essential. They reiterated that position, jointly with the South Koreans, on November 2-3, during the annual Security Consultative meeting in Seoul. I also appreciate the fact that the administration agreed not to oppose this resolution but rather to work with me on achieving an objective we both support, a strong, renewed dialog between North and South Korea. However, and this is the key point, as usual, the North Koreans are ignoring their responsibilities and resisting restarting the dialog. That is why the resolution calls on the executive branch to take steps to ensure that the North Koreans understand that the implementation of the Agreed Framework is linked to substantive progress in the dialog between North and South Korea, including through developing timetables for achieving measures to reduce tensions between North and South Korea. Although not a comprehensive list, such positive measures could include: First, holding a North-South summit; second, dismantling North Korea's reprocessing facility; third, initiating mutual nuclear facility inspections; fourth, establishing North-South liaison offices; fifth, establishing a North-South joint military commission; sixth, expanding trade relations; seventh, promoting freedom to travel; eighth, encouraging exchanges and cooperation in science and technology, education, the arts; health, sports, the environment, publishing, journalism, and other fields of mutual interest; ninth, establishing postal and telecommunications services; and tenth, reconnecting railroads and roadways. The resolution calls on the President to report to Congress within 90 days regarding the progress made in promoting communication and contact between North and South Korea, and every 6 months thereafter. Since the signing of the Agreed Framework with the United States, we have seen North Korea go to great lengths to avoid any involvement with South Korea. The North Koreans refused for several months to accept South Korean reactors. The joint press statement issued in Kuala Lumpur by the United States and North Korea did not include a direct reference to South Korea's central role in providing the light water reactors. And the North Koreans had maintained that the United States will be its principal point of contact in the negotiations. Also, North Korea continues to take steps to try to destroy the Armistice Agreement while insisting that it will only deal with the United States concerning an ultimate peace treaty. Further, North Korea continues to provide evidence that it wants to continue being a rogue nation, for example just a few days ago sending infiltrators into the South to attempt to cause problems for our ally. Mr. President, in sum, just as North Korea's attempts to downplay the role of South Korea while putting distance between the United States and South Korea must not be tolerated, North Korea's misbehavior should be condemned. I would note one recent development which had some potential for positive change--but then, typically, became a problem area because of the North's irresponsible behavior. North Korea and South Korea recently held talks in Beijing to discuss North Korea's renewed request for rice from its cousins in the South to relieve the food shortage in the North. This followed an earlier successful agreement to ship rice to the North--although the North then acted in its typically boorish fashion by arresting some of those who were trying to help its people. Now, despite the helping hand from the South, the North continues to resist the South's legitimate attempts to use the talks about rice aid to pave the way for greater dialogue. Mr. President, I do not need to remind my colleagues that 37,000 American soldiers stationed on the demilitarized zone remain in harm's way. We all received a grim reminder of this when a United States helicopter was shot down on December 17, 1994, killing one United States airman and leading to North Korean detention of another on false charges of American espionage. These American troops are part of the nearly 2 million troops who face each other across a heavily fortified demilitarized zone. Three decades of on-again, off-again talks between Pyongyang and Seoul have produced no significant progress in reducing tensions. Although a cease-fire effectively ended the Korean War in 1953, the two sides technically remain at war, and tensions today are as strong and all- pervasive as they've ever been. Mr. President, in sum, the Agreed Framework does not adequately address the inevitable underlying tensions between North and South Korea. Nor do I believe that North and South Korea will simply work everything out without some outside assistance. For that reason, I believe that the Clinton administration must take specific steps to ensure that North Korea lives up to its commitments under the Agreed Framework and understands that, if it does not, it will not receive the benefits which have been promised. This legislation will take us a step in the right direction. I hope our colleagues in the other body will also pass this legislation soon so that the process can begin.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to note with great regret the passing of one of Alaska's most prominent citizens, Oscar Dyson, on Saturday, October 28. Oscar Dyson was a true pioneer and an authentic Alaskan sourdough who epitomized the can-do spirit of the Last Frontier. Born in Rhode Island, he first came to Alaska in 1940, after working his way across the country. When World War II began, he went to work building airstrips for the Army Corps of Engineers. When Japanese airplanes attacked Dutch Harbor and invaded the Aleutian Islands, Oscar Dyson was there. After the war, Oscar truly came into his own. He started commercial fishing in 1946, beginning a career that would span generations and would make him one of the most well-known and admired figures in the U.S. fishing industry. Over the years, Oscar pioneered fishery after fishery. Starting as a salmon and halibut fisherman after the war, he branched out into shrimp, king crab, and ultimately, into groundfish. In 1971, he made the first-ever delivery of Alaska pollock to a shore-based U.S. processor, starting an industry that now has an annual harvest of over three billion pounds--the largest single fishery in the United States and the fourth in value--which now represents a full 30 percent of the U.S. commercial harvest. In the 1970's, while remaining an active fisherman, Oscar also diversified, joining with several other fishermen to purchase what became a highly successful and innovative seafood processing company. Oscar thought of himself--first, last, and always--as a fisherman. But to those of us who knew him, he was far more. He knew that good citizens must be ready to give something back to this great Republic, and he was as good as his word. He served 13 years on Alaska's Board of Fisheries, and three terms on the Federal North Pacific Fishery Management Council. He also served his country as an advisor and representative in international fishery negotiations with Japan and Russia. He didn't stop there. He was a founding member of the United Fishermen's Marketing Association and the Alaska Draggers Association. He gave his time to the Kodiak City Council, the Kodiak Community College, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, and the Alaska Governor's Fishery Task Force, to name a few of many. And he worked tirelessly toward the goals of the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, and Kodiak's Fishery Industrial Technology Center. Always, he helped lead his fellow fishermen toward a stronger, sustainable future. In 1985, Oscar was chosen by National Fisherman magazine to receive its prestigious Highliner of the Year awards. And this year, just days before the fatal accident that took his life, he was made the National Fisheries Institute's Person of the Year, the institute's highest honor. In all his endeavors, Oscar was strengthened and encouraged by the loving support of his wife, Peggy, who is herself known far and wide for radio weather reports that have for years enhanced the safety of life at sea and provided the daily comfort of a familiar and friendly voice to mariners. Finally let me note, and let us all remember, Oscar's strong belief in our Nation's youth. Both by example and by application, his kindness, humor, understanding, and sage advice guided generations of young people. He helped them learn the ropes, and they gained the confidence to go out into the world and--like Oscar himself--to make it better. There can be no greater memorial. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to note with great regret the passing of one of Alaska's most prominent citizens, Oscar Dyson, on Saturday, October 28. Oscar Dyson was a true pioneer and an authentic Alaskan sourdough who epitomized the can-do spirit of the Last Frontier. Born in Rhode Island, he first came to Alaska in 1940, after working his way across the country. When World War II began, he went to work building airstrips for the Army Corps of Engineers. When Japanese airplanes attacked Dutch Harbor and invaded the Aleutian Islands, Oscar Dyson was there. After the war, Oscar truly came into his own. He started commercial fishing in 1946, beginning a career that would span generations and would make him one of the most well-known and admired figures in the U.S. fishing industry. Over the years, Oscar pioneered fishery after fishery. Starting as a salmon and halibut fisherman after the war, he branched out into shrimp, king crab, and ultimately, in groundfish. In 1971, he made the first-ever delivery of Alaska pollock to a shore-based U.S. processor, starting an industry that now has an annual harvest of over 3 billion pounds--the largest single fishery in the United States and the fourth in value--which now represents a full 30 percent of the United States commercial harvest. In the 1970's, while remaining an active fisherman, Oscar also diversified, joining with several other fishermen to purchase what became a highly successful and innovative seafood processing company. Oscar thought of himself--first, last, and always--as a fisherman. But to those of us who knew him, he was far more. He knew that good citizens must be ready to give something back to this great Republic, and he was as good as his word. He served 13 years on Alaska's Board of Fisheries, and three terms on the Federal North Pacific Fishery Management Council. He also served his country as an advisory and representative in international fishery negotiations with Japan and Russia. He did not stop there. He was a founding member of the United Fishermen's Marketing Association and the Alaska Draggers Association. He gave his time to the Kodiak City Council, the Kodiak Community College, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, and the Alaska Governor's Fishery Task Force, to name a few of many. And he worked tirelessly toward the goals of the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, and Kodiak's Fishery Industrial Technology Center. Always, he helped lead his fellow fishermen toward a stronger, sustainable future. In 1985, Oscar was chosen by National Fisherman magazine to receive its prestigious Highliner of the Year awards. And this year, just days before the fatal accident that took his life, he was made the National Fisheries Institute's Person of the Year, the institute's highest honor. Finally, Oscar believed strongly in our Nation's youth. Both by example and by application, his kindness, humor, understanding, and sage advice guided generations of young people. He helped them ``learn the ropes,'' and they gained the confidence to go out into the world and--like Oscar himself--to make it better. There can be no greater memorial.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. With the permission of the Chair, I would like to proceed.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 12:30 p.m. The Senate will stand in recess between the hours of 12:30 and 2:15 today in order to accommodate the respective party luncheons. At 2:15, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 1833, a bill to ban partial birth abortions. Rollcall votes can, therefore, be expected to occur on amendments to H.R. 1833 or on any other items cleared for action. Mr. President, I believe I have 20 minutes reserved for morning business?

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the Senate begin consideration of H.R. 1833 at 2:15 today and that morning business be extended until 12:30.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to review the decisionmaking process of the Department of the Interior in preparing and releasing the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 1995 estimates for the 1002 areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge [ANWR]. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, November 14 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. Those wishing to testify or submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Kelly Johnson or Joe Meuse at (202) 224-6730.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for a number of days I have been sharing with my colleagues my observations on the opening of the Arctic oil reserve, or ANWR. Briefly, for those Members who are not familiar with this, let me just do a quick review. In the Congress and in the reconciliation package in both the House and the Senate is the authority to initiate a lease-sale in ANWR. There are many misconceptions relative to the proposal because a number of people believe that the entire area is at risk. This area in green, including the yellow area, consists of about 19 million acres. That is an area the size of the State of South Carolina. In 1980, Congress withdrew and set in permanent status the green area, consisting of 8 million acres of wilderness, which is shown in green and black here, and another 9\1/2\ million acres of refuge, leaving the coastal plain for disposition by the Congress. This area in red is the area retained by the Eskimo people of the village of Kaktovic. You will notice that they have no access out of that area other than into the coastal plain which is Federal land. The lease-sale we are talking about is a proposal to lease 300,000 acres out of this million and a half acres because the other 17 million acres has already been withdrawn. So we are talking about a very small area. To suggest that the entire area is at risk clearly is a misinterpretation of the facts. We log our telephone calls in our office, as do most Members of the Senate, because it is important that we have public reaction. It is kind of interesting to note that, as calls come in relative to my speaking on this issue, there is a perception that we in Alaska are initiating an activity that somehow is irregular or a departure from what is happening in other States. I can only respond to that by suggesting that our State has only been a State for 36 years. [[Page S 16714]] As a consequence, we are today establishing our land patterns in this huge area of Alaska, which is one-fifth the size of the United States. It has 33,000 miles of coastline. Other States were established--such as the State of Virginia, nearly 200 years ago, and Washington, Oregon, California, 100 years ago. So as a ``new kid on the block,'' so to speak, as we attempt to develop resources, whether it be timber, fish, oil and gas, or mining, we are trying to take advantage of the science and technology that is available today and learn from the mistakes of others and balance and develop an economy. I do not think many people have a total understanding or an appreciation of that. They think that the limited development in Alaska is somehow not in keeping with the times. The reality is that we have to have natural resources, develop those natural resources. We have a job base, and those jobs are high-paying jobs in construction, timber, mining, oil and gas. If we do not develop those resources, we simply get the materials from other countries, export our jobs overseas and export our dollars. The significance of developing this area is that geologists tell us this is where a major discovery might be made. Because Prudhoe Bay is in decline--this area has been producing 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United States in the last 18 years. As this area declines, the question is: Can we, or should we, replace it by bringing on line this area, the small footprint here in the coastal plain known as ANWR? Clearly, we can do it safely. We have been able to develop Prudhoe Bay. We have developed an 800-mile pipeline. We had a bad accident with the Exxon Valdez vessel, but that is something that had nothing to do with a pipeline. It was one of those human failures. The ship went aground in a 10\1/2\-mile channel. The point I want to make here this morning, Mr. President, is that we developed a small field adjacent to Prudhoe Bay 10 years ago. That was the 10th largest producing field. History tells us that if the oil is here, they can develop it in about 2,000 acres. To get back to some of the comments which I think have prompted me to try and give a little more explanation as to why Alaska should be attempting to develop its energy resources, there are suggestions that somehow we are beholden to an oil lobby as a delegation, that we should be giving more concern to the environment, that they think we have financial ties to the oil companies. One woman indicated she felt so strongly about it that she had worked to get a moratorium on elephants in Africa and she was going to go to work to make sure we got a moratorium not to develop oil in Alaska. I would like to think that these people who are obviously very interested would have a full understanding of the implications and an argument relative to the pros and cons of responsible development. With that background, let me just proceed briefly, because I think that there is need for some reflection on what Congress intended in 1980. The name of Senator Scoop Jackson of Washington is familiar to all Members of the Congress. He was a beloved and long-time Member of this body. It was at his insistence that this area, the 1002 area, be left out of the wilderness area and the refuge withdrawals to be setup specifically for Congress to address the prospects of oil and gas. That was done in 1980, Mr. President. As a consequence of that, now is the time for the decision to be made, and since it is in the reconciliation package, we look forward to discussing the merits. One of the most significant considerations is the reality that this Nation is now 51 percent dependent on imported oil. That oil comes in from the Mideast, and of course we send the dollars and the jobs to the Mideast. In the last few days we have seen a crisis in the Mideast, a very unfortunate situation, but, nevertheless, it proves the frailty of that part of the world, and our increased dependence on oil eventually will result in some kind of a crisis occurring as we look at Iran, Iraq, Libya and their moves toward nationalism. It is kind of interesting to reflect on the attitude of some of the opinion-makers that have had a responsibility with regard to our increasing dependence on imported oil. Former President Carter's Energy Secretary Schlesinger has testified in support of developing this area, stating that we can develop it safely, that we should reduce our dependence on imported oil. Some of the Orthodox Jewish organizations in the United States are the biggest supporters. They see increased dependence on the Arab States as a threat to Israel's security interests. Union support--the significance of what this activity would generate for America unions; it would be the largest concentration of construction in North America. The Teamsters, the laborers, the IBEW, the maritime unions all support this. This is a significant job issue. It is estimated that the lease sale would bring about $2.6 billion in revenue. That revenue, half of which would go to the Federal Government, the other half to the State of Alaska, would be raised in the private sector of the United States without one cent of Government funding. Now, there is a suggestion that some Alaskans do not support ANWR, some of the Native people in Alaska do not support opening. Mr. President, I want to take that fiction and state it factually. The Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the native organization in our State, voted two to one in favor of opening the area. I think it is unfortunate that the Secretary of the Interior, as he represents and has an obligation to represent all the Native people of our State, has chosen to represent a very small segment, the Gwich'ins, representing about 1 percent of the Native people in Alaska. The Gwich'ins are fearful that the Porcupine caribou will somehow be at stake. The justification for that is not supported by any evidence as I will show in the next chart. This happens to be a picture taken of Prudhoe Bay which shows the oil pipeline, shows a well being drilled, and it shows a number of caribou, pointing out the reality that the caribou are very adaptable. To suggest that the porcupine caribou cannot be managed by a joint management team of the Gwich'ins, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State department of fish and game is not based on any factual evidence by any means. That herd is about 165,000. Most of the animals, about 4,000, are taken by the Canadian Gwich'ins on the Canadian side and 400 by the Alaskan Gwich'ins. The point is, as we look at the development of this area, there are huge areas of wilderness and refuge that will be protected forever, and that the Alaska delegation stands behind them. Again, the footprint is .1 of 1 percent of the area, about 2,000 to 3,000 acres at the maximum. Let me just talk a little bit more about the caribou because it has a warm and cuddly aspect to it, as it should. The caribou range over vast areas and their range is dependent on basically three factors. One is predators. If there are a number of predators, or the predators are at an all-time high, like the wolf, obviously it will have an effect on the young caribou. The winter kill is a consequence of a tough winter, resulting in a decline of the herd. There is overgrazing, which will also cause a decline in the herd. As a consequence, it is fair to say of the approximately 34 herds in Alaska, two-thirds of them are on an increase, about 10 percent are on a decline, and the rest of them are stagnant but cyclical, as many of the ranging land animals in the wild. Now, we also have a presumption by the Secretary of the Interior that he is protecting our future by blocking access to opening up this area. I suggest the Secretary of Interior is actually gambling with our future. We sent troops to the Persian Gulf. We recall the gas lines in the 1970's. We are exporting our dollars and jobs. We are making less environmentally conscious nations produce oil. Another fiction is this is a battle between rich and greedy oil companies and poor and saintly environmental groups. I want to talk about some of the environmental groups tomorrow, Mr. President. Environmentalism in the United States is big business. There is nothing wrong with it. We [[Page S 16715]] should recognize it simply for what it is. Now, the oil industry is big business in the United States. It provides jobs. It provides our Nation with energy security, as well. We should not kid ourselves. The battle here is in many aspects between the very rich national environmental lobbyists and some of our poor Alaska Native people who want alternative lifestyles. They want to have running water. They want to have sewage disposal rather than honey buckets. They want to have jobs. They want to relieve themselves of the dependence on welfare. They are being deprived of these opportunities by the suggestion that we cannot open up this area safely. Sometimes we see a double standard, a standard that suggests that this idealistic election of not allowing responsible development--there is no consideration of the human element, there is no consideration of the people that live in the area of what they feel they should have is a right to a job, a right to a good education, a right to have a future for their children, other than welfare. As a consequence, Mr. President, there is one overwhelming fact in this debate. All Americans stand to benefit from ANWR exploration. Those benefits are: Jobs, as I have already outlined; security, by eliminating the necessity of our increased dependence on imported oil, which is already 51 percent. We can do it without any significant harm to the environment, using our technology, our engineering skills, our can-do capability. And one other item that this body spends a lot of time and effort on, and that is the concern over the deficit, balance of payments. In other words, the fact we are buying more overseas than people are buying from us. What is that deficit made up of? Nearly $56 billion, half of it, is the price of imported oil. The other half is our trade imbalance with Japan. So, here we have, in this particular issue, responsibly opening up this area in our State with a very small footprint, utilizing our technological capability, an opportunity to address some concerns that we all have--jobs, national security, the ability to develop this in harmony with the environment, and an opportunity to balance the budget. I was also considering the merits of two articles that appeared in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times on October 27. They both concern themselves with the increase in the price of oil, to show you how fragile the world of oil is relative to any crisis that exists throughout the world. We have seen crises in the Mideast in the last few days, but we are also seeing one in Russia. ``Concerns About Yeltsin's Health Help To Push Oil Prices Higher.'' ``Prices of Oil Futures Jump on Report of Yeltsin Having Health Problems.'' Clearly, the former Soviet Union has a tremendous capability to produce oil. On the other hand, their infrastructure is such it is not a very attractive market. Finally, let me just comment on one point relative to the people of the area, because the people of the area are so often left out of any equation that affects the environment or the ecology. The people of Kaktovik, the people of Point Barrow, the Eskimo people, these are people working their way out of Federal dependency. Because of our success, we are now opposed, seemingly at every turn, by, among others, a Secretary for Indian Affairs, Ada Deer. She now has gone on record as opposing successful Native corporations and organizations that are developing the resources in our State. She wants us to go back, and our people to go back, and be dependent on the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But, as we have seen, dependency brings despondence, it brings a dependence, it kills self-initiative, it breeds a welfare society. Alaska's Native and Eskimo people want to follow the American way, the way of independence, the way of self-help, individual responsibility, family values, a sense of community. Yet we are seeing spokespersons, including the Secretary of the Interior and Ada Deer, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, actively opposing this development in the area where these people live. This is a tragic day, in a sense, for the nearly 8,000 Eskimo people, because this is the first time any Secretary of the Interior has rejected his trust responsibility to pursue the naked political objectives of those opposed to the interests of Native Americans. It seems like the Secretary is almost penalizing hard work and success. On one hand they champion dependency, welfare and allegiance to an incompetent Bureau of Indian Affairs. Then, on the other, they put commercial fundraising interests of environmental organization over those of the Eskimo people who need help, who need this opportunity. So, we see an administration, now, that opposes opening the coastal plain. Yet they are actively selling OCS oil and gas leases in the Arctic Ocean adjacent to the coastal plain. They say that is OK, that is all right. Secretary Babbitt and the others have their priorities backwards. Oil development on the land is safe. Oil development in the isolated wind-driven reaches of the ocean is risky; it can be hazardous. Mr. President, I see my time is up. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. Tomorrow, or the first opportunity I can get time in morning business, I intend to comment at some length on the issue of environmentalism as big business in the United States, what it consists of, who it involves, what salaries are being paid, and a list of the assets of the various organizations so the public can understand the other side of the issue. On one side we have big business and oil. On the other side we have big business and the environmental community. I thank the Chair and wish the Chair a good day.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have been asked by the leader to make the following statement. I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I understand by previous order this bill will be considered at 11 o'clock on Tuesday, November 7.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator does object to further proceeding.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, to highlight the letter dated October 16 from President Bush, it reads: I write in enthusiastic support of opening up ANWR for oil exploration and production. My support is based on the conviction that we must not continue to become increasingly dependent on foreign oil. A major lesson from Saddam Hussein's brutal invasion of Kuwait is that we must not become totally dependent on foreign oil. Right now we have good and reliable friends in the Middle East, but it is only prudent that we find and develop our own petroleum reserves. The President further states: I am totally convinced that ANWR oil can be developed in an environmentally sound way, and that there will be no damage to the caribou indigenous to the area. I understand that some of the same extreme voices that we heard in the 1970's, voices that predicted the extinction of the caribou, refuse to admit that they were wrong. Indeed, not only are the caribou not extinct, but they have proliferated. In addition, as you know better than anyone, the development of ANWR means jobs for American workers. That in itself is a worthy objective. I hope Congress will promptly remove all barriers to ANWR development. Sincerely, George Bush. Mr. President, I would like to show very briefly the picture of the area that is currently producing near Prudhoe Bay. This gives you some idea of the number of caribou which just happen to be in this particular shot. You see the pipeline. You see an oil well being drilled. That oil well and that derrick will be removed. But clearly there is an abundance of caribou. To suggest that the caribou in the area of ANWR will be damaged, or depleted, or reduced as a consequence of activity just does not bear the essence of reality in the comparison that we have had with the central Arctic herd. And as a consequence, Mr. President, it is pretty hard to buy the argument that the caribou indeed are endangered by this. We have had statements and testimony from former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger who indicates that it is in the national security interests of our Nation to lessen our dependence on imported oil. He points out the reality that we have seen in the Mideast, Iran, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Libya--a situation that is very volatile. It actually affects the national security interests of Israel as well, and, if the United States becomes more and more dependent on the Mideast sources, we are exporting our jobs, exporting our dollars, and it is contrary to our national energy security interests. I point out, as the Presiding Officer is well aware, that in 1990 we fought a war in the Persian Gulf. That, Mr. President, was a war over oil. Make no mistake about it. We have had Secretaries of Energy-- Schlesinger, Watkins, Hodel--all very, very concerned about our increased dependence on imported oil. As late as just 7 months ago our Secretary of Commerce, Secretary Brown, put out a very, very interesting and challenging statement that indeed the national energy security interests of our Nation are at stake because of our increased dependence on imported oil. So it is just a matter of time before we are held hostage by the situation in the Mideast, a situation that will be advanced as a consequence of our increased dependence. [[Page S 16640]] As far as support for this, I think it is paramount to note that in my State of Alaska--I think we have a larger chart here of the State. The people of the Arctic are primarily the Eskimo people, and they frequent the area of Barrow, Wainwright, Kaktovik. They are nomadic in a sense traditionally. They live a subsistence lifestyle, but as a consequence of the development of Prudhoe Bay, an alternative lifestyle has been available to the people of the Arctic, and that lifestyle has provided them with a tax base. That tax base has provided them with additional necessities of life that you and I take for granted: running water and sewage disposal, as compared to the honey buckets which they previously had--an indoor bucket, and as a consequence the honey bucket man comes around once in a while. Here is a map of the State of Alaska. Where we are talking about is these areas in the very, very far north. If you look at the map, you will see the Arctic Circle moving across here, so we are north of the Arctic Circle. It is truly a hostile environment. It has its own unique beauty, but living there in a land of permafrost where it is virtually impossible to dig because of the frozen ground, the opportunity for utilities as we know them, running water and sewage, simply do not exist. By providing the opportunity for jobs, for a tax base, these people now have a standard of living that is much superior to what they previously had. They have an opportunity for jobs if they want them. There is job training available. There is transportation available to the Prudhoe oilfields. So my point is that the Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the organization that speaks with virtually one voice for Alaska's Native community, has come out in support of opening up the Arctic oil reserve for competitive lease sale. There is one group of Natives, the Gwich'ins, that continue to object to opening that up. And this is a relatively small group. Most of the Gwich'ins are in Canada, the area of the Arctic villages of Venetie and Fort Yukon. There are 300 to 400. Unfortunately, efforts to try to address their concerns of the Porcupine caribou herd have been offset by extreme efforts by America's environmental community focused on the argument that, indeed, in their opinion their livelihood--the Porcupine caribou--is at risk. The proposal is to mandate that no exploration occur during the time that those caribou migrate from Canada into the area. They calve in the general area, calve in an 8-million-acre area, but there would be activity to ensure that there would be no harm to the caribou occurring at that time. As the picture that I showed you earlier shows, we have a very, very healthy herd in the Central Arctic. What happens to the caribou herds is rather interesting. We have 34 herds in Alaska, about 990,000 caribou. About three-quarters of them are increasing, about 10 percent are in decline, another 15, 20 percent are stagnant. But as anyone knows who observes the tendency of animals that graze, if some of them overgraze the area, they decline. If there are too many predators, they decline. If there are hard winters, they decline. So they are continually going up and down. But we have had an excellent experience with our caribou, and to suggest that the Porcupine herd would be in jeopardy is just not based on any sound scientific fact. There is opposition to this by others than the Gwich'ins. We continually see rhetoric by the environmental communities. We have recently seen the USGS develop some new figures relative to what the reserves might be. Nobody knows what the reserves are going to be until you drill, because when you look for oil, you do not usually find it. We had an oil sale out here off Prudhoe Bay called Mukluk. The oil industry assumed that there was going to be a great reserve found there. The bids went up over $1 billion. Several companies, one of which is no longer in business, bet the farm on the lease sale. They drilled. They did not find oil. The oil had been there eons ago, but it is gone now. So the Secretary of the Interior has come up with figures that show a substantial reduction in reserves over the figures that were previously put together by USGS showing a higher reserve. The point is nobody knows. Then there has been suggestion that the State of Alaska is not going to share this revenue. Well, we can reflect on the rhetoric. We can discuss the merits of whether or not a major portion of this area of ANWR will be damaged, and clearly, as I have pointed out, it will not. Some people say that ANWR would only produce 3.5 billion barrels of oil. Somebody has equated that to a 6-month supply so why open this area for such a small amount. In reality, Prudhoe Bay was a supply that was anticipated to be, what, 200 days or thereabouts? The significance of that comparison is that Prudhoe Bay has been supplying the Nation with 25 percent of its total crude oil production for the last 18 years. So when you put forth an example that suggests it is only going to be a 6-month supply, you are assuming that there is going to be no further oil development anywhere in the United States as far as production; you are going to shut them all down, and therefore this becomes a 600-day supply. That is a bogus argument. We have seen from the USGS a quick turnaround on a study that was requested by the Secretary of the Interior. The rather interesting thing was that that study was done by the California USGS people. They did not include the extended experience that was accumulated over many, many years by USGS personnel in Alaska. These were people who were trained in Arctic evaluation. Why they were not included is something that we are all a little concerned about. The Secretary of the Interior has yet to explain it. As a matter of fact, we anticipate having a hearing into that because it is inexcusable that the Secretary would not use his best expertise to get an evaluation, the best evaluation available. The rhetoric concerning the habitat is rather interesting to reflect on. As I have said very briefly, there is no evidence that the wildlife would be harmed. That means we do not have any scientific justification to suggest we cannot open the area safely. I have indicated that the Porcupine caribou herd, which is the herd in question, has experienced a vast movement in numbers. In 1972, there were about 100,000 in the herd; in 1989, 178,000; I think today about 160,000 or thereabouts. Some suggest, well, what about the polar bear in this area? They den in this area. People who know the polar bear know that they do not den on land; they den at sea. If you are a caucasian U.S. citizen, you cannot hunt polar bear. If you are a Native, you can take polar bear for subsistence. Very few of them are taken. But you can go over to Canada and hire a guide and go out and shoot a polar bear. It might cost you $10,000. So when you talk about conservation of the polar bear, why, charity begins at home. We do not allow in the United States the taking of polar bear by caucasians. You can take them if you are a Native for subsistence only. So I get a little frustrated by my Canadian friends when they give their opinion relative to protecting the caribou. They are very happy to take a $10,000 bill from a hunter to go out and get a polar bear trophy. We talk about wolves. We talk about bear. We talk about geese. There are increasing numbers. There is no suggestion that there is any decline in the wild animal population of the area, nor would there be any significant reduction as a consequence of any development. Some say that this is the only place in the United States where the Arctic is protected. Well, there are 450,000 acres of the coastal plain--this area up here. It is already set aside in wilderness. There are over 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline in Alaska. Very, very little of that area is disturbed. And the production would be concentrated in one area, I think Kaktovik, where there is a small village, a few hundred Eskimos. There is a radar site. There are two other abandoned radar sites. You would not know, Mr. President, one area from the other along that coast, that plain, because it is so flat and it is so much the same. Some suggest there is no need for the oil, we have a lot of oil in the world, we can rely further on Russia. Well, as I have said earlier, we have heard from President Bush, Secretary Eagleburger, Secretary Schlesinger. We are now [[Page S 16641]] moving toward a 60- to 70-percent dependence on the Middle East. Too much dependence lets others manipulate us. What about Russian oil? Well, we have seen in Russia a series of environmental disasters, the Komi oilspill. The environmental record is absolutely unacceptable and in an unstable political situation. We have seen American companies go over there, and the infrastructure is so difficult to penetrate many of them are wondering if they made good investments. Let me go back to USGS, which is the agency that has the obligation to make forecast predictions with regard to oil and gas in areas throughout the United States on public land. As I indicated, we are going to have a hearing on November 8. But in 1987 the Interior Department took several years to complete the evaluation based on its estimate of what the reserves were. And we saw a few weeks ago the Department of the Interior come out in 3 days, almost with a back-of-the-envelope study, a study, as I have indicated, where it did not involve the arctic experts they had in Alaska. It was done in California. It was timed to coincide with the committee, the Energy Committee's ANWR votes. Let me tell you what some of the career scientists over at the USGS have to say about the Interior study. This came from a lifelong Federal geology professional. It is all too obvious that this latest ANWR reevaluation is a rather blatantly self-serving exercise in politically directed pseudoscience, a disgrace to the agency and the personnel involved. And from a current USGS employee in Alaska: Who is ever going to believe our numbers anymore if we start producing back-of-the-envelope assessments every time the Secretary of the Interior snaps his fingers at us? The Secretary and our director seem dead set on destroying our reputation and destroying the geological division as an organization in pursuit of short-term goals. Finally, Mr. President, there has been discussion that somehow the State of Alaska is going to renege on this deal, that the 50-50 split somehow is going to be changed as a consequence of State action against the Federal Government. Well, that is a red herring, Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from our Governor and a letter from the president of our State senate and the speaker of our State house. I am going to just read a portion of those letters. This is from Drue Pearce, State president, and Gail Phillips. And I would ask they be included in the Record, as well as that of Governor Knowles. Both these letters are dated October 17.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. The first is from Drue Pearce, senate president and Gail Phillips, house speaker. As the Republican leaders of the State Senate and House, we would like to state our unqualified support for [the] current congressional plans to allow oil and gas development on the coastal plain of ANWR and to share lease revenues 50-50 between the State and Federal Governments. Further: Governor Tony Knowles announced on September 28 before the National Press Club that he [supports] the 50-50 State- Federal split of ANWR lease revenues as proposed in the budget reconciliation act. He is [further] on record saying he will introduce legislation to change the statehood compact to provide [for] a 50-50 revenue split for ANWR lease revenues. Further, Mr. President, a letter from the Governor. . . . it has been made clear to us that a fifty-fifty split of the revenues is necessary . . . Therefore, I will introduce and pursue legislation to accept such a change if Congress adopts a fifty-fifty revenue split. In this way, Alaska's elected officials in Juneau will have a full opportunity to debate the merits of agreeing to any modification . . . So, Mr. President, for the record, you have a commitment from the State of Alaska relative to the revenue sharing. And, Mr. President, our word is good. Now, in conclusion, let me just point out one of the disturbing things that is occurring on this issue. And I find it difficult to bring this to the attention of the body, but for a period of time the Secretary of the Interior has chosen to represent one segment of the issue, and that is the segment fostered by and supported in conjunction with the Gwich'in people, with the backing of the preservationists and environmental groups in this Nation. The disturbing feature is that now we have a Secretary who is not representing the majority of Alaska's Native people. On the other hand, he is representing a small minority. Somewhere less than 10 percent. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Native people of Alaska, the Eskimo people of Alaska, who have lived for generations on a subsistence lifestyle have gone through an extraordinary transition. Previous to the welfare system, to the food stamps, these proud people were dependent on hunting, fishing for their subsistence. As a consequence of that dependence, they generated a small amount of cash from trapping, fishing, for the necessities of life, gasoline for their outboard motors, their snow machines, rifles, [[Page S 16642]] shells, and over an extended period of time, when food stamps came in, where they qualified. So there was a transition. After food stamps came in they did not have to depend to the same extent on subsistence. I am reminded, I might say by my staff, I said that the Secretary was representing about 10 percent of Alaska's Native people. I am told Gwich'ins consist of about 1 percent of the Native people. So, it is even smaller. But my point is, in this transition of the Native people of our State, as a consequence of food stamps, they have become less dependent on subsistence. Subsistence played a vital role, but they did not have the total dependence. So, as a consequence, trapping was reduced and a little later we began to expand the welfare system. So, today in Alaska we have a significant portion of our rural residents, most of them Native residents, dependent on subsistence and welfare. Now we are going to cut welfare. Welfare is going to be reduced. We all know that. The BIA, that plays a major role in the lives of many of Alaska's Native people, is going to be cut. Now, these people want jobs. They want jobs at home. These are good-paying jobs associated with resource development, oil and gas. So 99 percent of America's Native people, I should say 99 percent of Alaska's Native people, support, through their Federation of Natives, or thereabouts, opening this area. We have job training capabilities in Alaska. We have a Job Corps center. We have a good experience of utilizing some of our Native people in Prudhoe Bay. But here is a long-term job opportunity. And the Secretary of the Interior has taken a position against a majority of Alaska's Native people in favor of that 1 percent, the Gwich'ins people who oppose opening up this area for competitive leasing. The justification for that is going to have to be the Secretary explaining to the Native people of Alaska why he has chosen to represent this minority. Mr. President, I am going to be talking further next week on some aspects that I feel are important to this body. I think what we will do the first of the week is to go into some of the fact and fiction, because America's environmental community has found this issue to be very attractive in raising funding-generated membership. I was in one Senator's office the other day. The Sierra Club had evidently contracted with one of our Nation's communications firms. The way it worked is that the Sierra Club provided the communications firm with telephone numbers of people who were members of the Sierra Club in that particular State. They were able to dial in simultaneously, two calls in one. They would phone a Mr. Brown in the State of Arkansas and say, ``Mr. Brown, we have the Senator's office on the line. We would like you to express your opinion about the possible drilling in the Arctic oil reserve which would ruin this area and wipe out the animals in the area.'' Immediately, the call would come in--Mr. Brown would be on the phone-- to the Senator's office and be able to log in a call. This is a pretty significant effort. It costs a lot of money. We do not have those capabilities to explain our side of the story. What we do have is 18 years of experience producing oil from Prudhoe Bay. Where would this Nation be today without that oil, that 25 percent? We would be even more dependent on the Persian Gulf. We have the finest oilfield in the world in Prudhoe Bay, and we are proud of that. We built an expertise in the Arctic with our geologists, with our USGS personnel showing that we can open this area safely, we can do it compatibly with the environment and the ecology, as evidenced by this picture of the caribou flourishing in Prudhoe Bay. The same set of circumstances can happen in ANWR. So we have the can-do spirit. The only difference is today we have nearly 20 years of experience. We can make the footprints smaller. We can provide more jobs in this Nation. We can reduce our national security exposure to more dependence on the Mideast. We can provide for the largest single identification of jobs in the United States which will help our unions, help our economy, and, lastly, Mr. President, what it will do is it will address our balance of payment deficits. Half the balance of payment deficit is the price of imported oil. I want to thank the President for his attention, and I wish he and my colleagues a good day. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, yesterday I had an opportunity to take some of the Senate's time in the morning to discuss the issue of the Arctic oil reserve and ANWR, which are, in effect, one in the minds of most people, but in reality there is a significant difference. Let me just very briefly review the significance of this area and put it in a perspective that I think can perhaps be more easily understood. First of all, we have the area in green and the area in yellow and the small area in red, representing, in the minds of most Americans, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This is a very, very small piece of Alaska, up near the Canadian border that overlooks the Arctic Ocean. The significance of this, of course, is that in 1980, Congress acted and designated specific land uses. The uses included putting 8 million acres in a permanent wilderness. That is the area in green with the black slashes. At the same time, they put approximately 9.5 million acres in a refuge. This is represented by the green area. These were placed in a permanent status. However, they left 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain for designation in the future because of the promise of oil and gas discoveries in those particular areas. The red area is native land, primarily occupied by a few hundred Eskimos in the village of Kaktovik. What we have before us is a decision by the Congress on whether or not to allow a sale of approximately 300,000 acres in the coastal plain to take place. In both the House and Senate reconciliation package, we have included the [[Page S 16639]] authorization for the sale. The anticipated lease sale is about $2.6 billion. That would be split between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska on a 50-50 basis. What I would like to point out in my description is that the entire 19 million acres is not in question by any means. It is that 1.5 million acres would be authorized for the lease sale, and that portion that would be utilized in the actual sale would be 300,000 acres. What is the footprint? With the advanced technology that we have seen in the development of the Prudhoe Bay field, which has been contributing about 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United States for the last 18 years, we have seen significant development in lessening the footprint. We had a field called Endicott about 7 years ago which came in as the 10th-largest producing field. The footprint was 56 acres. Industry tells us that, if we are lucky enough to find a major discovery in this area, footprint can be produced dramatically. The first comparison was about 12,500 acres, which equates to the size of the Dulles International Airport, assuming the rest of Virginia were a wilderness. Now they say they can do it in about 2,000 acres. So what we have here is clearly a manageable footprint. We have the technical expertise and the American engineering commitment to do it safely. So clearly it is good for America. It is good for our national security interests. If one concludes for a moment that in 1973 when we had the Arab oil embargo we were about 36 percent dependent on foreign imports, today we are 50\1/2\ percent dependent on oil exports. What about jobs, and what about the economy? If the oil is there, this would be the largest single construction activity in North America. Probably 80 percent would be union jobs because the skills required to develop an oil-field and provide a pipeline over to the existing pipeline are such that it would provide a tremendous opportunity for skilled workers, and the unions are the only ones that have that abundance of skilled workers. So from the standpoint of jobs it is estimated that there would be somewhere between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs, and virtually every State would be affected. So it does have a dramatic impact on the economy. Furthermore, it would not require $1 of Federal funding. This lease sale would take place with private capital coming from the purchasers of the lands, and development would occur from private sector financing over an extended period of time. There is some suggestion that there are environmental problems. And I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a concern over the environment--a valid concern. But we have the technical expertise to overcome that as evidenced by the development of Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay is the best oilfield in the world. You might not like oilfields. But the technology, the application, the permitting, and so forth that are mandated there clearly point out that it is the exception to all oilfields throughout the world relative to its compatibility with the ecology and the environment. As far as the congressional interest in this sale, the idea of generating $1.3 trillion into the Federal Treasury is a significant inducement. And as a consequence of that, that in itself merits the consideration and support of this body. However, the real value is to lessen our dependence on imported oil because Prudhoe Bay is in decline. It has been producing about 2 million barrels a day. It is down to about 1.5 million barrels a day. As a consequence, by the time Prudhoe Bay is in further decline, we will either be importing more oil or we will be able to develop some of our domestic reserves. And the most promising one in North America is in this 1002 area which I refer to as the Arctic oil reserve. Where is the base of support for this? I think it is interesting to note that we have a letter from former President Bush that I think cites very explicitly the concern, and I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at this time, Mr. President.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the environmental impact statement was completed in 1987, and it took 5 years to complete. There were full public hearings and extensive studies. The record speaks for itself.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would be happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a consequence, the merits of this, what this means to the people of the area, are significant. The people in the area, the Eskimo people, are speaking for themselves and they are speaking against the interests as enunciated by the Gwich'ins, who are very much opposed to this. I visited one of the Gwich'in villages, Arctic Village. I was up there in August. I was also in Venetie. I went into the meeting hall in Arctic Village and was cordially hosted. They had a big poster, a Hollywood poster of the buffalo. The sign under the poster said, ``Don't let happen to the Porcupine caribou herd what happened to the buffalo.'' Mr. President, they were out to shoot the buffalo and that is what they did. This activity has nothing to do with going out and shooting the Porcupine caribou. The caribou are very adaptable, unless you run them down with a snow machine or begin shooting them and so forth. So, as a consequence, there is absolutely no suggestion that this herd is going to be affected by this activity. The Eskimos have invited the Gwich'ins to come up to Barrow, at their expense, to see for themselves what the alternative advantages are for jobs, tax base, and so forth. Unfortunately, there are tremendous pressures by the environmental groups that are funding, through the Gwich'in Steering Committee, ads in the New York Times and other efforts in opposition to this. We have also seen, unfortunately, the Secretary of the Interior, who is very much opposed to this development, side with the Gwich'ins. The Gwich'ins are a relatively small population in Alaska, somewhere in the area of 400 to 500 people at most. Most of the Gwich'ins live in Canada. Of course, Canada is a competitor of the United States, a competitor to Alaska in the sense that Canada supplies a lot of energy to the world, a lot of energy to the United States. So the official position of the Canadian Government is very much opposed to the development of energy in Alaska because they see us as a competitor against their market which provides energy into the United States--gas, oil from Alberta, and so forth. As far as the Porcupine caribou herd and the dependence on that, about 300 to 400 animals are taken each year by the Alaskan Gwich'in people, about 4,000 by the Canadian Gwich'in people. So, this is the environmental issue: Whether or not this area can be opened safely without harming the Porcupine caribou herd and the Gwich'in people. To suggest that American technology and ingenuity cannot open up this area and do it safely is really selling short America. This pipeline was one of the construction wonders of the world. Prudhoe Bay is the best oilfield in the world. You may not like oilfields, but it is the best. The environmental oversight, permitting requirements are higher than anywhere else in the world. It is suggested by industry that they can have a very small footprint in this coastal plain, if allowed to initiate drilling. People have said, ``Senator, you are from Alaska. Obviously you have a position on this issue. How do you know that? How do you know that footprint is going to be small?'' About 8 years ago we came out and found another field adjacent to Prudhoe Bay called Endicott. That came on production as the 10th largest producing field in the United States, at about 110,000 barrels a day. Today it is the seventh largest at nearly 130,000 a day. They put a little island offshore here. And the footprint is 56 acres--56 acres. Mr. President, this area is 19 million acres, as I said. The coastal plain up here is 1.5 million acres. We are talking about a 300,000-acre lease sale. Industry tells us now that their footprint, if the oil is there, can be as little as 2,000 acres. Four or five years ago industry said our footprint might be 12,500 acres. Do you know what 12,500 acres is? It is like the Dulles International Airport complex if the rest of the State of Virginia were a wilderness. Remember, this area we are talking about is as big as the State of South Carolina. So to suggest that this footprint is going to jeopardize the coastal plain, is going to jeopardize the porcupine caribou herd, is absolutely a fabrication of reality. This is an important issue for the Nation just as Prudhoe Bay was because Prudhoe Bay has been contributing 25 percent of the total crude oil produced [[Page S 16560]] in the United States for the last 18 years. It is in decline. What do we replace it with? More imported oil? Export more jobs? And $57 billion dollars is the cost of imported oil. We have an opportunity, and the opportunity is now because this issue is in the reconciliation package. There has been tremendous pressure on the White House on this issue. But not once has the White House addressed the national security interests. What has happened in the Mideast, Mr. President? What has happened with Libya, our friend Qadhafi? We all know Saddam Hussein, Iraq, and what is going on in Iran today, and the threat against Israel's national security. The Mideast is going to have a crisis. It is just a matter of time. We have heard from a number of statesmen. Larry Eagleburger, former Secretary of State, Schlesinger--many, many others saying do not put your eggs in one basket. That Middle East situation is going to explode, and our increased dependence on that market is going to result in the United States being held hostage because of our increased dependency on imported oil. Mr. President, this would be the largest single job producer in North America. It would not cost the Federal Government 1 cent. There is no subsidy. There is no appropriation. The private sector will bid this in at an estimated bidding price to the Federal Government, the State of Alaska, at $2.6 billion. In addition, there is approximately $80 million or more that is anticipated as a revenue stream to be contributed to refuge maintenance in our national parks and refuges. And as a consequence of the increased need for these facilities, I would like to do see more funding put in for our parks and other areas. I appreciate the extension of time. Let me just make a couple of more points because I do not see other Members who wish to speak at this time. There is some suggestion that this is going to have an effect on the polar bear. Anyone in Alaska can tell you the polar bear do not den in ANWR. They do not on land. They den at sea on the Arctic ice. You talk about the polar bear. We do not allow the polar bear to be hunted by Caucasians. You cannot take a polar bear in Alaska unless you are a Native. You can only take it for subsistence. You cannot take a hunter out for hire. In Canada, you can take a $10,000 bill, and you can go out and shoot a polar bear; anybody. So we are taking care of our polar bear. We are taking care of our renewable resources. So the environmental community is selling America short on our technology. And I would look forward to an extended debate on the factual realities associated with this issue because what we have seen is rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric; no factual information of any kind.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there is, in the reconciliation bill passed, in both the Senate and the House, an item known as ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge lease sale. There have been many views, versions, and interpretations of just what this is all about. I think it is appropriate that a Representative from Alaska, again, highlight the facts concerning this very important issue relative not only to the reconciliation package, where it is anticipated to result in a lease sale of about $2.6 billion, but its contribution to the national energy security interests of our country. Mr. President, let me attempt to put the issue in an understandable perspective relative to the size of the area that we are concerning ourselves with and the actual footprint anticipated. First of all, there is a bit of a misnomer associated with ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. I hope the Chair can see this chart. Perhaps I should put it up a little higher. This does a pretty good job of describing the area in question. ANWR itself covers, basically, this top area, which is the coastal plain, about 1\1/2\ million acres; there is this wilderness area in green here, about 8 million acres. It covers the Arctic National Refuge--this portion here, which is in an area that is in refuge. That is about 9 million acres. It covers this up in the Arctic coastal plain. This is 1.5 million acres. The point is that the Refuge is about the size of the State of South Carolina. [[Page S 16558]] When we talk about allowing an oil lease sale, there are a lot of misconceptions relative to just what the footprint will be. As I have indicated, the wilderness area, the green area, is not in jeopardy. That has been put in a wilderness status by Congress permanently, and that was initiated back in 1980. The area of the refuge, which is the color orange--roughly 9 million acres--was also set aside in a permanent refuge in 1980. This area in yellow, the small area at the top, consists of 1\1/2\ million acres. That is the 1002 area that was left out of the permanent designations in 1980 by Congress for Congress to address the appropriateness of allowing oil and gas leases in the area. So what we have here is, out of the 19 million acres, an area of 1\1/ 2\ million acres where the Congress is now making a determination on whether or not a lease sale should take place. This little area up here, as you see in the red or maroon color, is Kaktovik. That is an Eskimo village. The proposal is to lease 300,000 acres out of the 19 million acres of ANWR. In reality, it is 300,000 acres out of the coastal plain, a very small area. People have indicated that the Canadian border is right in here--that this area has virtually never had a footprint in ANWR. Obviously, that is incorrect. There is an Eskimo village. There is a radar site at Barter Island. Two abandoned radar sites are along the coast. So there has been a footprint, but it has been very negligible. Geologists tell us that this is the most likely place in North America where a major oil discovery might take place. We really do not know whether the oil is there, and you do not know where to look for it; and when you look for it, you usually do not find it. When you look for it in Alaska and find it, you better find enough because of the cost of developing and transporting the oil. It is rather curious to note that on this chart we have the area to the west, Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay, as most Members know, has been supplying this Nation with 25 percent of its total crude oil production for the last 18 years. The significance of Prudhoe Bay is that, while it has continued to flow at a rate much higher than predicted, and the recovery is much higher today, that field is in decline. Production has been as high as 2 million barrels a day. Today it is down to 1.5 million barrels a day. As a consequence, we are importing more oil from overseas sources. To give you an idea, Mr. President, and many Members really do not reflect on this, but in 1973 we had an oil embargo in this country--the Arab oil embargo--and the significant thing at that time, we were 36 percent dependent on imported oil--36 percent. Today, our Nation is just a little over 50 percent dependent on imported oil. For those of you who have perhaps forgotten, in 1990 we had a war in the Persian Gulf. That was a war over oil. It was also an environmental catastrophe in Kuwait. You recall the burning of the oilfields. Now, earlier this year, our Department of Commerce put out a report that said the national energy security interests of the United States were as risk as a consequence of our increased dependence on imported oil. Several years ago there was a great deal of discussion in the Nation relative to the increased dependence on imported oil, and there were those who suggested we would have to take steps--positive steps-- to decrease our dependence on imported oil if we ever approach 40 or 45 percent dependence on imports. Here we are today at 50 percent. We hear a lot about our trade deficit. We are buying more overseas than other nations are buying from the United States. It is interesting to look at the makeup of that. Roughly half is our trade deficit with Japan. Mr. President, the other half is the cost of imported oil. Now, about 25 to 30 years ago when they were contemplating whether to open Prudhoe Bay, they made the initial discovery. They had a question of how to transport the oil to market. Some may recall the Manhattan, a U.S. tanker that had been reinforced to move through the ice through the fabled Northwest Passage, taking the oil from Prudhoe Bay, AK, over the top of the world, but they found the ice conditions were such it was an impractical alternative and proceeded to initiate the Trans- Alaska Pipeline--an 800-mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It proved to be one of the engineering wonders of the world. It withstood bombs. It withstood dynamite. It withstood rifle shots. It withstood earthquakes. There was a bad accident in Valdez with the Exxon Valdez when it went aground, but certainly it had nothing to do with the integrity of the pipeline. What we have here is a situation where the arguments used against this were very vocal--national preservation, environmental groups said this would be a hot pipeline. The oil comes out of the ground hot. You were putting the pipeline in permafrost, permanently frozen ground; therefore, you will melt the ground from the heat of the pipeline; that will cause the pipeline to break. What about the animals, the caribou, the moose? Are they going to cross the pipeline? You will have an 800-mile fence across Alaska. Clearly, that was not the case. The pipeline did not thaw the ground. As a matter of fact, many of the moose and caribou feed upon the pipeline because there is more vegetation. As the Acting President pro tempore from Montana is very much aware, any heat in an area where you have vegetation causes the grass to grow. We have the animals browsing in the spring on top of the buried pipeline because the grass grows more profusely in those areas. The point is, the same arguments used against opening up the ANWR, or arctic oil reserve, are the same arguments used 25 years ago. They were predicting doom. You could not do it safely. What about the people of the area? We have the Inupiat Eskimos in Point Barrow, Wainwright. The Eskimos were concerned because there was a question about their dependence on subsistence. What would happen to the caribou? Here is a picture, Mr. President, an actual picture of a very small portion of the central Arctic herd. Can you see the caribou? There are lots of them. They are all real. There are males and females. You see the pipeline in the background, and you see an oil rig under drilling. Once this area is drilled, this rig will be removed. Clearly, you see they are compatible. Now, the Eskimos were fearful this development would harm the caribou and their dependence on subsistence. They are, today, advocates of opening up the Arctic oil reserve because they have seen for themselves, they have satisfied themselves that this activity has provided them with another alternative to subsistence. That is, jobs. They have jobs in huge areas of northern Alaska where jobs did not exist any before. They have a choice of jobs or subsistence. Today, Point Barrow--at the top of the world, you can cannot go any further north--without a doubt, has the finest schools in the United States, without exception. They have indoor recess areas. They have been able to do this because they have the taxing capability, they have a revenue stream from the oil activities. They have jobs. There is a concern being expressed by a group of our Native people in Alaska called the Gwich'ins, and this chart shows what this issue is all about, involving another caribou herd. The caribou herd that moves in this general area of the Porcupine River is called the Porcupine caribou, named for the Porcupine River that flows in and out of Canada and affects the villages of Arctic Village and Venetie. The particular native people in this area are not the Eskimos of the North Slope but are very dependent on the Porcupine caribou herd for their livelihood and subsistence. This is the line that separates Canada from the United States up at the top of the world. This caribou herd is about 165,000. As far as caribou are concerned, in Alaska we have 34 herds. We have about 990,000 caribou in the 34 herds. Two-thirds of the herds are increasing in numbers and 15 percent are in decline, and the rest are relatively stable. The herds fluctuate. As the Senator from Montana well understands, they can overgraze their particular area and their numbers decline. There can be a concentration of predators in an area and numbers decline. There can be hard winters and the numbers decline. This particular herd is the Porcupine caribou herd--about 152,000 animals. [[Page S 16559]] The people that are dependent on this herd are the Gwich'ins, and they are in Canada and Alaska. Three quarters of them are in Canada and the rest are in the villages of Venetie and Fort Yukon. They are fearful they will lose this subsistence dependence as a consequence of activity associated with the lease-sale development and hopefully discovery. I point out, Mr. President, a footprint is pretty small. The proposed lease sale in the Arctic oil reserve--this is a term I use--because it differentiates from the 19 million acres of ANWR, the actual area under consideration, the 300,000-acre lease sale out of the 1.5 million is pretty small in comparison to the entire area. But the facts are, these caribou migrate in from Canada, come up into this area, and many of them calve. They calve where they calve; not in one spot, necessarily. It depends on the winter. Sometimes very few of them calve in America. They calve in Canada. But they come out here by preference, if they can, because they come to the coastal areas where the wind blows and there are fewer flies and mosquitoes and it is just a lot more pleasant. As a consequence, the question is, can we have development compatible with migration? If the Prudhoe Bay case is any evidence, we think we can. But what we are anxious to do is work with the Gwich'ins on both the Canadian and Alaskan side to form an international caribou management system to ensure that these animals are not disturbed. The theory behind that would be that development, in the sense of exploration, drilling and so forth--which occurs in the wintertime, I might add--would not take place during the calving time, which is 3 to 4 weeks during the early summertime. So we can address that adequately. But that is one of the major issues that is used to suggest that the Porcupine caribou herd is at risk by this development. Interestingly enough, these dots on the Canadian side represent sites of actual drilling for oil that took place in the 1970's. It is interesting to note also that there is a highway here, the Dempster Highway in Canada. It goes from near Dawson up to Fort McPherson. These caribou in their migration cross that highway. The Canadian Government did not see fit to do an environmental impact statement when they built that highway on the effect it would have on the caribou. The reality is it had very little if any effect, just as any activity in the coastal plain will have very little if any effect. We can take steps to ensure that it does not have an effect. The argument that the Porcupine caribou herd is in jeopardy because of this activity is a bogus argument. It is a bogus argument fostered by some of the national preservation, environmental groups, that look upon this issue as a cause celebre. It generates membership, it is idealistic, it generates dollars. The American people cannot see for themselves just what kind of a footprint there would be. The American people cannot communicate, if you will, with the Eskimo people, as to what the advantages have been for them with the associated development and employment in their area. I might add, for those who are not familiar with this area, because of the permafrost in these areas it is almost impossible to have underground utilities. So the tradition in these villages is no running water. The water is hauled in. There are no sewage facilities. You have what you call honey buckets. The honey bucket man comes around two or three times a week and you dump your honey bucket in the honey bucket wagon. A lot of people do not know that in many parts of rural Alaska that is the standard way of life. As a consequence of having a tax base, these villages are getting running water, they are getting sewage capability, things that we take for granted and have never questioned. But if you do not step in another man's shoes and appreciate how he lives, you will never know what it is like--not to have running water and sewage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 10 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair, and wish the President a good day. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. As the Senator from Minnesota knows, there are different views. The Senator is coming from the point of view of an obstructionist. We had an environmental impact statement prepared for the first lease sale. The application of updating that is certainly appropriate. But to suggest we have to go back and start the process over means you are simply putting it off, and as a consequence we will simply import more oil from overseas. So this is just another obstructionist proposal because we have already had an adequate EIS. If you are going to bury this thing, then you have to take the responsibility for it. The Senator from Alaska simply is fed up with these arguments that have no foundation. They are simply obstructionist views, and as a consequence it is not relevant.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the leader has asked me to communicate this news to the Senate this morning. I am told that there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until 12 noon. Following morning business, the majority leader has stated that it will be his intention to begin consideration of S. 1372 regarding the Social Security earnings limit. The Senate may also be asked to begin consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill during today's session. As usual, all Senators should anticipate rollcall votes throughout the day and possibly well into the night.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator is correct.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is true that our language allows USEC to contract with existing DOE facilities for activities and services other than the production of highly enriched uranium. To the extent that there is a longstanding government policy that the Federal Government not compete for work that the private industry can supply, I agree that the DOE should defer opportunities to the private sector.