Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. They gave it to you?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the President, if they are not consumed tonight, what is the disposition of the time?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wouldn't want the Senate to be misled.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I will proceed and omit any reference to the previous order. I will go to Thursday's consent. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 9:30 on Thursday, there be 8 hours and 30 minutes remaining on the concurrent resolution, and the pending resolution be the Durbin amendment relative to tax cuts. I further ask consent that prior to the vote, relative to the Robb education amendment, there be 10 minutes remaining, to be equally divided between Senator Robb and Senator Domenici for the closing debate.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would appreciate it if the Senator will get his name so we can contact him.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the Senator allowing me, on behalf of the leader----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of Senator Durbin, the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And the remaining time on this side relative to the Roth amendment?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. The division of that time, Mr. President?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think that may clarify the time. I am sorry, but I did not hear the question posed by the minority whip.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I certainly agree with my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee, relative to the interest of America's environmental community. This is a big issue for them because it generates membership and it generates dollars. They have a cause. We have heard from them, the eloquence expressed by my friend, the chairman of the Finance Committee. But what we did not hear was any of the 500,000 American men and women who were sent to the Mideast to fight a war against Saddam Hussein. They left their loved ones. They risked their lives. What did America's environmental community say about that? They did not say a word. What are they saying today about our increased dependence on Iraq? Seven hundred thousand barrels a day of oil; the fastest growing source of oil coming into this country. What is the environmental community saying? What we all believe in: More conservation, more alternative energies, as they drive in their automobile or pick up their plane to fly to the next point. Come on, let's get real around here. We talk about ANWR potentially having a 200-day supply. Under that logic Prudhoe Bay should have been a 600-day supply. In reality, It has been supplying this Nation with 20 to 25 percent of our total crude oil for the last 23 years. That is a ridiculous comparison. It suggests that all other oil production is going to stop, all other domestic production is going to stop, and that is all you are going to have from one source. Come on, get real. We can come up with better arguments than that. They say 95 percent of the Arctic Coastal Plain is open to oil and gas development. That is false. Try and get a lease up there. Only Fourteen percent is open. This map shows the Naval Petroleum Reserve that was dedicated in the 1900s. You think you can get a lease in there? Try. Go over to the Secretary of Interior and see if you can get a lease. They put up a few leases, but you cannot go in and even lease where the high potential for oil is in the Naval Petroleum Reserve. If that isn't where you are supposed to find oil, I do not know where is. Where are you going to find oil? The ANWR area isn't open. This other area of the State is partially open. But the reality is, the wilderness is closed. The Coastal Plain is closed. The Teshepuk Lake area is closed; Barrow is closed. The western portion of NPRA is closed to oil production. That is the reality. So do not buy their arguments that 95% of the Coastal Plain is available for development because it is ``pie in the sky.'' We are concerned about our Gwich'in people. However, what they propose to do is lease their open lands for oil development. They offered to lease more than land than the entire 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain of ANWR. They offered to lease 1.799 million acres. They signed a lease. Unfortunately, the oil company did not find any oil there. Maybe they should have taken the leases anyway. So we have more myth around here than fiction. No reality. No credit for American ingenuity or technology or the realization that this area we are talking about is the size of the State of South Carolina. Mostly the Members here cannot comprehend size. We had four time zones in Alaska during the time I grew up--most of the time I was here. We cut them down to one. If you overlay Alaska on the United States--you know it and I know it--we extend from Canada to New Mexico; Florida to California. The Aleutian Islands go out forever. They almost go to Japan. It is a big hunk of real estate. We have heard a lot of romantic and fanciful notions tonight about the Coastal Plain. But we have not discussed and resolved the obligation to oversee the national security interests of this Nation. This is the Senate. We make decisions on war and peace. ANWR is a serious issue. It is so serious that I hope you will all remember that if this amendment is adopted, I can assure every single Member of this body, we will well be on our way to jeopardizing our national security by further increasing our dependence on imported oil. I do not want that obligation on my shoulders. It is time to turn around the direction in this country, reduce our dependence on imported oil, move into the areas where we have potential oil and gas discoveries in the Rocky Mountains, the overthrust belt, and my State of Alaska. We have a Vice President who says he is going to cancel all OCS leases. Where are we going to get oil from? Where are we going to get the energy? Where are you going to get the fuel for that 747 called Air Force One to fly back and forth to New York or wherever it goes? Are you going to do it with hot air? The Vice President goes around town. Does he drive a battery-operated car with the back seat full of batteries? Does he drive an electric car? No. We are not there yet. It is serious. This is an issue of national security. We fought a war over oil in 1991. We lost 147 lives. We have $10 billion of the taxpayers' money invested in keeping Saddam Hussein fenced in. It is an issue of the environment. We have the best environmental stipulations in the world in the United States. Most of the OPEC countries have the worst. They are drilling in the rain forests of Colombia. We have proven what we can do it right in the Arctic. We have a record. We have produced between 20 percent to 25 percent of our domestic crude oil in the United States in Alaska for the last 23 years. It is an issue with the economy, sending our dollars overseas, our jobs overseas. It is a third of our trade imbalance. It is an issue that you--when I say ``you,'' I apologize to my colleagues--but no Member has addressed the people of my State, the Eskimo people who support development of this area. You know what they say? They say, ``please put my people, the Inupiat Eskimo people, into the picture of ANWR. Stop airbrushing us out.'' Try being airbrushed out of the picture or out of your State. That is kind of the position to which these people feel they have been relegated. What a tragedy. This is serious. This is not something that should be taken for granted. The Eskimo people support development. One of my Eskimo friends, Oliver Levitt, to a group of us in Barrow, said: I used to come to school to keep warm. My job every morning was to go out on the beach and pick up what little driftwood floated down from the McKenzie River to the shores near Barrow. He came to school to keep warm. That isn't the case in Barrow anymore because not only do they have the revenue from oil, but they have jobs. They have an alternate way of life that used to depend totally on subsistence and following the game herds. That is the record and the reality. It was 20 below in Kaktovik yesterday, if it makes those of you in this body who have been listening to a little of my hot air cool off.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am happy to yield my friend from Oklahoma 15 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on the other side as controlled by Senator Roth?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I don't intend to yield back. Mr. President, I have not addressed this matter yet. I yielded to my colleagues on the other side, so I am prepared to talk at some length. But out of courtesy, if they want to proceed, I will wait.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I note that the picture my friend from California identified--and that is an extraordinary picture of the Brooks Range, as she may not know--is nowhere near the Coastal Plain, the 1002 area about which we are talking. It is probably somewhere between 80 and 100 miles away. That is the wilderness we are committed to support and does not represent at all the Coastal Plain which is the issue before us.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator from California yield?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. And I believe there is an unlimited time, for all practical purposes, on the underlying amendment.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is always amusing to me to learn the facts about my State, things I didn't know. I was 6 or 7 years old when my family moved to Alaska, and I have lived extensively throughout the State and believe I have some knowledge of facts and some knowledge of fiction. I again refer to the picture my good friend from California portrayed. Those mountains are the Brooks Range. As this will show you clearly, the Brooks Range is an area we are committed to protect. As a matter of fact, it is the wilderness. The wilderness is not in jeopardy, in spite of what we have been led to believe by most of the speakers who have never been to Alaska in spite of the invitations extended over the years. There are 19 million acres, as my friend from Oklahoma accurately pointed out. What we have done with this, the vision of Congress, was to establish both a wilderness and a refuge. The wilderness is approximately 8 million acres. The refuge is 9.5 million acres, leaving this 1002 area, the Coastal Plain area, which has been referred to as the Serengeti of North America. Let me tell you what is in it because no one has attempted to describe that. I find that extraordinary. It is treeless. It has no mountain. I think the hills are 1,100, 1,200 elevation. But those are found 20 to 30 miles from this coast. In this area, there are 92,000 acres of private native land. In the area of Kaktovik, Kaktovik is a native village. It has 223 residents and their attendant housing, their schools, their stores, their boats, their airstrips, their power lines, a variety of other modern-day facilities. The military's Barter Island DEW Line radar station is also nearby. It is hardly accurate to portray this unique area as the Serengeti of North America. It is unique, there is no question about it. Now there have been many statements, and unfortunately there is just not enough time to respond to all of them. I think we should be sensitive to recognizing the reality that OPEC is watching this debate tonight. Saddam Hussein is watching this debate tonight. This debate addresses whether we are committed to reduce our dependence on imported oil or increase it. The administration, when it made its profound announcement that they had been successful in convincing OPEC to increase its production by 1.7 million barrels, really left out a few interesting facts. It wasn't a net of 1.7 million barrels. It was actually a net of 500,000 barrels. We know that because OPEC had been committed to a production level of 23 million barrels a day in March 1999, but they had been cheating. They had been producing 24.2 million barrels a day. So the acknowledged difference between the announced 1.7 increase and the 1.2 cheating is only a 500,000 increase. To suggest that is all going to the United States is a fallacy. We get about 16 percent of it. As a matter of fact, the arithmetic suggests it is somewhere in the area of 121,000 barrels of oil, which is the amount, interestingly enough, that is consumed in the greater Washington metropolitan area every day. The percentage the United States would get out of that 500,000 barrels is somewhere in the area of 78,000 barrels per day. So we don't even stand still, if you consider our increasing demand. It is little or nothing in comparison to what our needs are. Consider some of the facts associated with the lack of an energy policy in this administration. You can't help but be overcome by the reality that we have learned little from history. We were 37-percent dependent in 1973. We are 56-percent dependent on foreign oil. The administration acknowledges that we are going to be about 64-percent dependent on foreign oil by the year 2015 to 2020. What does that mean to the coastline of California, New Jersey, or other areas where these tankers are going to come? The oil is going to come in, Mr. President. Well, it is estimated that that will mean about 30 giant--foreign, I might add-- supertankers, each loaded with about 500,000 barrels of crude oil, will have to dock at U.S. ports every single day of the year. That is about 10,000 ships--as I have indicated, most are foreign flag--unloading in our harbors each year. I think this indeed creates a substantial environmental risk because you are not going to have many of these companies having the deep pockets of Exxon. You speak of environmental issues. Isn't it better to promote development domestically when we know the global environment is going to be protected than to encourage development from Iraq or the Russian Arctic, where development is done without regard to the environment? Think about that, Mr. President. Think about the environmental community's attitude. They don't care where the oil comes from, as long as it doesn't come from up here in Alaska. If it comes from the Colombian rain forest, that is OK. If it comes from the dilapidated infrastructure of Russia, where there are leaks all over, no environmental enforcement, that is OK with them. It can come from Iraq, and that is OK. I find that very ironic. We lost 147 American lives over in Iraq in 1991. We had nearly 300 wounded and 23 taken prisoner. The American taxpayers paid $10 billion to keep Saddam Hussein fenced in; that is enforcing the no-fly zone. We have military people stationed over there to ensure that he doesn't break out and invade Kuwait or threaten Israel. Yet our newest and fastest growing source of oil imports is Iraq. It was 300,000 barrels last year; it is 700,000 barrels this year. I could go on and on, but clearly Saddam Hussein takes this revenue-- and to suggest that he somehow uses it for the benefit of his people is obviously misleading. He uses it to keep the Republican Guard, which, in turn, keeps him in office--maybe keeps him alive, for all we know. Do you know what else he is doing, Mr. President? He is working with the North Koreans to build missile technology. What kind of a threat is that to Israel, or the United States, or the free world, for that matter? We are rebuilding Iraq's cash-flow, which sustains their economy. I happen to believe charity begins at home when it comes to our energy security. We have the technology. We can do it right. Let's look a little bit at a map of Alaska. Before we do, I see I have a chart here that reflects Iraq's oil exports to the United States. The exports were virtually nothing in 1997, and now it is 700,000 barrels a day. What the administration did the other day regarding Iraq is, they had the Department of Commerce lift the export ban on technology, which will allow Saddam Hussein and Iraq to increase their production capacity. So the answer of this administration to address our energy needs is simply to import more oil. Don't worry about any domestic development, we will get our oil from overseas. There are a lot of politics in this issue, the issue of the 1002 Area of the Arctic Coastal Plain. The politics of America's extreme environmental community is evidence on this floor; it is evidence with the pictures and with the dialog and with the Members. I wish to God the environmental community would come to grips with reality and recognize the dependence we have on imports and what it is doing to our national energy security--come to grips with it and help us develop domestic energy sources with their recommendations, with attention to their environmental concerns, and help us to do it right. So we attempted to do it right in Alaska. The Congress has attempted to do it right. We have 56 million acres of wilderness in my State. As I have said, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an area the size of the State of South Carolina; it is 19 million acres. We have set aside, as I have indicated, 9 million acres in refuge, 8.5 million acres in a wilderness. But Congress, in its wisdom, left this area aside to determine its management status at a later time, with the belief that the national energy security of the country might necessitate its development. Let's look at some factual pictures of what is going on in the real Alaska. Here is the real Alaska. Clearly, this is not in the 1002 area because there is no exploration activity allowed there. But I defy you, Mr. President, or any Member in this body, to look at this area and see any difference--you can see the ocean out here--but any difference with the general area of the Coastal Plain in the wintertime. This is a tough area, with winter 8 months of the year. We have heard a lot about pipelines and a lot about gravel roads. This is the technology that is used in Alaska today. That is an ice road there. It is built up with ice and snow, and sometimes water is added. This is a drill pad. That is a factual picture of the technology used today. Let me show you what it looks like in the summertime on the tundra with that same well capped. That is it. That technology is utilized in Alaska today because it is the right thing to do. It is the environmentally compatible thing to do. You will not see that in any other oil field in the world. It is a long winter up there, Mr. President. We have capabilities, obviously, to address some of the wildlife concerns we have heard so much about tonight. Well, you have seen this before. This is a picture in Prudhoe Bay, but you would never know the area from the Coastal Plain, with the exception of the pipelines in Prudhoe Bay. Here are three bears going for a walk, walking on the pipeline where it is warm. It sure beats walking on the snow. Nobody is shooting those bears; nobody is running them down. We have a picture of some caribou. We have heard a lot about them from our experts who have never been to this area. This is in Prudhoe Bay. This is an oil field, and this is 35-year-old technology. These are some live caribou. I can assure you that those are not stuffed, like some of the conversation we have heard tonight. This is factual. We have a herd of Caribou called the Porcupine herd and a legitimate concern about that herd because the Gwich'in people are dependent on it. It is kind of interesting to look at the history of this because as you look at Alaska, you also have to look at Canada because we abut. We have an interesting issue here. The Canadians, about 20 years ago, were very interested in drilling in the Mackenzie Delta, thought there was a great opportunity for oil and gas. So they drilled some 89 holes here in this area on the Mackenzie Delta, and they also built a highway called the Dempster Highway. The interesting thing is that this line on the map represents the path of the Porcupine caribou herd. Not only has it maintained its general stability during the time these areas were drilled extensively by the Canadians, but the caribou cross the highway. Now, it is not the beltway--I grant you that--but it is a highway that goes up into the Canadian Arctic. They wander into Alaska and go into the Yukon, where the Gwich'ins make a substantial take for subsistence purposes. It is significant that these animals are adaptable; if you don't shoot them or run them down with a snowmachine, they can flourish. Now we have heard from the Senator from California, mentioning a letter from the Canadian Ambassador opposing development of the 1002 area. Yet they thought it was OK to drill their area. Maybe they are in a little competition between Canada and the United States for energy. We buy a lot of energy from them--a lot of electrical energy--particularly in the Northeast corridor. They are happy to do that; Alberta is happy to sell us gas. Maybe they don't want us to compete. I wonder if that could be the motivation of the Canadian Ambassador. As we look at our concern over the Porcupine caribou herd, it is legitimate and the people associated in these areas are legitimately concerned. But we have been able to protect the caribou in Prudhoe Bay with 30-year-old technology. The herd has grown from 3,000 when development began to over 18,000 caribou. You can't take a gun in. You can't shoot them. It is the technology that we have going for us now that offers us such a tremendous opportunity to develop this resource. If we were back before this body some 30 years earlier, we would have heard the debate on the appropriateness of opening up Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay was the largest oil discovery in North America, and it still is. There was a great deal of debate over how to develop it, and what the impact would be, because to get this oil out, we had to build an 800-mile pipeline across the length of Alaska. We have a chart for those of you who wonder where that might be. It runs from the Arctic Ocean clear down through Fairbanks on to Valdez, where the oil is then shipped down to the west coast where it is primarily processed. We had a terrible accident. The Senator from New Jersey was there. He knows that tanker ran aground in a 10\1/2\ mile wide channel with absolutely no excuse. But the accident happened. But that wasn't the fault of the pipeline. That wasn't the fault of the oil field. It was a human error involving a supertanker, and it was inexcusable. But the reality is we have been able to build this pipeline. It has withstood earthquakes. It has been shot at. It has been dynamited. It is one of the wonders of the world. But 35 years ago or so, when we were arguing about this issue, we had the same arguments we have today. The doomsayers were saying: You are going to build a pipeline, a hot pipeline. It is going to take hot oil and pump it through a permafrost area; because that is what the Arctic is--permafrost, frozen ice and ground. That hot pipeline is going to melt the ground. You are going to lose the foundation. Your pipeline is going to break. It didn't happen. They said this 800-mile pipeline is going to be a fence across your State, an 800-mile fence. Your moose, your caribou, your animals are not going to be able to cross. It is going to be a calamity. It didn't happen. There is nearly 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline. It is all unique and very much all similar. You look for oil. You find it where you are most likely to find it. The geologists simply tell us that the 1002 Area of the Coastal Plain is the area where we are most likely to make a major discovery; The USGS says 16 billion barrels. Let me tell you something to factor in because we have heard so much rhetoric around here tonight. For Prudhoe Bay, the recovery estimates were 9 billion to 10 billion barrels. Prudhoe Bay has been producing some 23 years. We have produced over 12 billion barrels, and we are still producing. It is estimated that we will probably produce for another decade, or maybe two, because the technology is such that we can get greater recovery. When you talk about estimates, you had better be realistic. If there is no oil up here, nothing is going to happen, except you might have a lease sale. You might get a substantial payment from the oil companies that are prepared to bid on it. That is the risk they take. We don't know what is up there. But the geologists say it is the most likely area for a major discovery. That is why Congress, in its wisdom, set this area aside for Congress to address and resolve at a later time. That is why we are here. The Budget Committee took action because we have a crisis in this country. If you do not believe it, ask the Secretary of Energy. He went over to the OPEC countries. He said: We have an emergency. You know what they said: We are having a meeting on March 27. He said: No. You don't understand, its an emergency. We sent 35,000 troops over here. We fought a war to keep Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We lost American lives. We need help now. We need more oil production in those countries. You know what they told him: We are having a meeting on March 27. They stiffed him. He went to Mexico. He told the Mexicans: We need more production. Mexico said: Fine. But where were you when oil was $11, $12, and $13 a barrel, and our economy was in the sack? We have an emergency. If we don't take steps now to recognize our increased dependence on imported oil, one wonders when we will. What is going to happen to the security of this Nation from the standpoint of energy as we become more dependent on imports, more dependent on Iraq, and more dependent on OPEC? Those are the realities we face today. Let's take a look at something that is very unpleasant. I hate to show you this. But this is a terrible picture that ran all over America when Saddam Hussein was defeated and when he set the oil fields of Kuwait on fire. You talk about environmental degradation. That is it. Here you see Americans over there trying to put out the fires and stop the environmental damage. You can see the burning wells behind him. This is reality. This is the kind of individual and the type of country and leadership on which we are now depending for our energy security. I find it outrageous and inexcusable. I am very critical of the environmental community that condones oil coming from a tyrant, one who left an environmental scar of the magnitude that Saddam Hussein left in Kuwait. Let's look at a couple of others because they are all bad. The only problem is that they get worse. How we can continue to be misled, if you will, through complacency associated with our dependence on Iraq is beyond me. Here we see the burning wells and the terrible mess that was left. Look at the Americans working in those conditions. This Senator is not going to stand by and support increased dependency on Iraq when we clearly have an administration whose only policy is more imports. Give us more; give us more. It is like an addiction. It is pathetic. You almost forget. And you can very easily forget that we are dependent on oil for transportation. Our truckers came to Washington, DC, and expressed themselves. They can't pass on the price. Look at your airline tickets. You pay a surcharge now. The consumer--the mom taking the kids down to the soccer game--is facing nearly $1.85 or $2 a gallon. It shoots a pretty big hole in a hundred dollar bill if she has a sports utility vehicle, and many of those aren't paid for. But go a little further. Our farmers are getting geared up for planting season. What is the cost of that going to be relative to their productivity? Can they pass it on? It multiplies. What do the farmers use? They use fertilizer. What is fertilizer made of--urea. It comes from gas and oil. The multiplier is there. Look at our balance of payments. One-third of the $300 billion is the cost of imported oil. Every time oil goes up $10, inflation goes up half of 1 percent. There are a lot of uneasy people out there. This single issue today is going to send a signal about whether we are serious about alleviating our dependence on imported oil and are going to do something about it. I have heard statements that it will take a while. Yes, it will take a while. President Clinton vetoed ANWR the last time it went down to the White House. That was in 1995. We would know today if we had oil there. We would be on our way to production. One of the things that bothers me about the environmental community is they sell American technology and ingenuity short. We can do it better. We can make a smaller footprint, given the opportunity. And we have that opportunity before the Senate today. We have heard conversations about oil exports. There has been oil exported because there has been excess capacity on the west coast up until a short time ago. Those who don't recognize and understand oil, unfortunately, don't know that oil used to move through the Panama pipeline, and prior to that in smaller ships through Panama, and to the gulf coast to be refined there. That changed when Venezuela came on production. So we had an excess on the west coast, a modest excess. Now with the takeover of Arco by BP Amoco and the divestiture of the Arco Alaska properties to Phillips, which has refineries, there will not be a surplus. There will not be a surplus because BP will now have refineries on the West Coast. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from BP indicating they have no plans to export oil, once the contracts for the current month expire. As I understand, Phillips has no intention of exporting oil. That is a bogus argument. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Unanimous consent to----

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield. If the Senator from New Jersey has been recognized, I will keep my remaining time and use it tonight.

Frank Murkowski

Speeches

Manage analytics