Frank Murkowski

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am not sure of what the remainder of the Senate schedule might be for this week, but my own tenure in this body is somewhat limited as a consequence of my election to the Governorship in the State of Alaska. So with the permission of the Presiding Officer--and I have checked with the Parliamentarian--we have the opportunity to address matters in our short remaining time. I would like to share with my colleagues an earthquake that occurred in my State of Alaska just a little over a week ago. It registered 7.9 on the Richter Scale, which is a very high earthquake. My wife and I happened to be at mass during the earthquake, and not only did the chandeliers move from side to side, but the crucifix, hanging by a brass chain, began to move very dramatically, and it was almost as if the sign of the cross was moving across the agenda. It happened to be a Korean service in a Catholic Church in Anchorage, and I must say, the magnitude of the earthquake was matched by the magnitude of the Korean priest who did not break stride in his sermon. On the other hand, it was in Korean, and my Korean is a little rusty. But no one moved from the church. Heads went down. And I admired the priest. My purpose in bringing this matter up is to share with you a recognition of concern that has been expressed in this body for some time; and that is the safety of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline which covers some 800 miles from the North Slope of Prudhoe Bay to the city of Valdez where the oil is shipped in U.S. tankers and moved down the west coast. The significance of this earthquake along this 800-mile pipeline was that no damage was done in spite of the 7.9 magnitude. Dealing with the potential for earthquakes in the design was a consideration some 30 years ago, that the line itself should be designed to withstand an 8.0 magnitude earthquake. I want my colleagues to know that the line held a 7.9 tremor quite nicely. As a matter of fact, immediately after the quake rocked interior Alaska, the pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez was shut down as a precaution and inspected. The massive quake did do some damage. There were a few supports which were quickly repaired. The line slowly was refilled and put back into service. But the significance was that there were no breaks. In fact, the damage was minimal for the size of the quake which did destroy some roads, damage some bridges, other structures. But the best news is not one cup of oil was spilled, despite the magnitude of the quake--not one single cupful. There are those who claim the line has been poorly maintained; those who say it is dangerously old, beyond its prime. I hope they will reconsider, recognizing what happened under a real test. What can they say? The line performed as it was designed and engineered to perform. It is quite timely as this comes at a time when we have in the House and Senate conference the issue of opening up ANWR to oil exploration. It has been a significant issue among the environmentalists. It has pitted Republican against Democrat and Republican against Republican, Democrat against Democrat. As we contemplate action in Iraq, we should reflect on the realization that we have done a pretty good job of producing energy here at home and, given the opportunity, we can do much better if we are fortunate enough to get an energy bill and get ANWR included in that. This comes at a time when Alaskans' dreams of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration are being rekindled by huge Republican gains nationally in Tuesday's elections. The GOP is in control of the House and the Senate, and Democrats who are beholden to environmentalists and have blocked ANWR will have a more difficult time turning their backs on U.S. energy independence and national security. I hope as I leave this body in the next few days that my State of Alaska will get a fair hearing on the ANWR issue because people in my State for years have been saying oil exploration and development can be done and in an environmentally safe and responsible manner. Prudhoe Bay and other North Slope oilfields' records provide the best proof that the assertion is true that we can develop these resources safely here at home. I think Sunday's earthquake was further evidence.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a good afternoon. Mr. President, I, too, would like to lend a few comments to one we fondly regarded as the ``Little Giant,'' Senator Paul Wellstone. I, obviously, had an opportunity over the years to converse, discuss, debate, agree--occasionally disagree--with our friend who truly believed in his cause, a cause that was perhaps more liberal than my own, but a cause that was reflected on what makes the Senate so unique; that is, the cause of the balance that we have, more or less a mainstream of thought that prevails in the Senate. But in many cases it is brought about by those who have very active views, whether they be liberals or conservatives. But Paul Wellstone did represent, if you will, the pendulum in the Senate. His contribution was one of activism, of standing for the underdog, of reflecting on the needs of some we can never properly repay; specifically, the veterans of this Nation who have given so much so that we can live in the freedom of our democracy. As I have reflected, along with Senator Stevens and Representative Young, because of the vast distances between our State of Alaska and Washington, DC, and the tribulations of long flights back and forth, and the ever-increasing pressures to make dates, particularly during campaigns, having just run a campaign myself, why, I can recall the unpleasant evening flights in bad weather, with a recognition that people expect you to be present at a given time. And it is the demands that are constant pressures to try to fulfill obligations that cause each Member of both the House and the Senate to live, perhaps, on the edge. Unfortunately, that edge results in additional exposure that is associated with accidents. And we have seen that in the passing of our good friend Paul Wellstone, who, again, to me, is referred to as the ``Little Giant'': small in stature but significant in what he believed. And his contribution, again, I think is measurable in one sense by those who knew him but in another sense by the legacy he leaves in this body.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will make a few remarks on the status of the energy bill. As we know, our President earlier stated one of his priorities was Congress should pass an energy bill. The House of Representatives has done its job. It passed a bill. The bill has been sent over to the Senate. We have been to conference, and had a number of meetings associated with the items in that bill. Many of those items are contentious. On the other hand, that is what a conference is all about: Solving, compromising, whether it is electricity or renewable portfolio standards, climate change, producing more oil from my State of Alaska by opening up ANWR, or whether it is stimulating the agricultural industry and the farm industry of this State through the ethanol. We need a substantial mandate to increase the use of ethanol. It is important to recognize one specific offer that was made. That I will go into some detail. It reflects as much of an inconsistency regarding our dependence on imported oil and an opportunity we have in the United States to develop a significant potential of oil on U.S. land known as ANWR. This chart shows in some detail a couple of realities. One is the large area called the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is the ANWR area. It is 19 million acres, about the size of the State of South Carolina. There is ANWR in relationship to the State of Alaska. On the left is the TransAlaska pipeline, 800 miles long, from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, carrying about 17 to 20 to 23 percent of the total crude oil produced in this Nation for the last roughly 23 years. That pipeline was designed to flow at about 2 million barrels a day. It is flowing a little over 1 million barrels a day. So there is additional capacity. In the green area, the area that is proposed for any development, which is called the coastal plain, the estimated reserves there are somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels. If it were half that, if it were 10 billion barrels, it would be equal to what we import currently from Iraq in a period of 40 years, or equal to what we import from Saudi Arabia in 30 years. We do not know if it is there. But this is Federal land, and we have an opportunity to make a decision because there is an offer that has been made by the House to the Senate. The offer has been specifically to take the whole area colored in the buff and put it into a wilderness. This would be the largest wilderness ever created in the United States. Currently, the area of wilderness colored light buff on the chart is approximately 9 million acres. The area colored darker buff is a refuge. The proposal is to take that refuge of 10 million acres, add it to the wilderness, and then there will be a wilderness area of almost 17 million acres. That would again be the largest wilderness area in the United States. It is hard to make a comparison. We currently have 57 million acres of wilderness in our State, and we would be adding another 10 million acres of wilderness. The point is this is an offer that is pending. I cannot help but reflect on periodicals addressing what else is going on in the energy world. A release indicates our Department of Energy and the President issued a special Presidential permit for energy plants powered by natural gas piped from Texas, cooled with Mexican sewage, and linked to California's energy grid next year. The plants will be built in Mexico. A New York Times article called ``Japan Looks to Eastern Russia for Relief of Oil.'' The last paragraph says there is expended a commitment to expend about $13 billion that ordinarily would go into Alaska. With about $2 billion scheduled to be spent on development on this island every year until the end of the decade, Sakhalin's 591,000 residents are bracing for a major boom. "Come next summer, and we are going to hit a logjam of-- cargo, airplanes, hotels, you name it,'' predicted James R. Sexton, an American business consultant who has worked here for the last decade. It's exciting times, just like Alaska was decades ago.'' As one of the settlers of Alaska, I have a particular sensitivity to that because what the American oil industry is doing is simply moving offshore. If we have the infrastructure but we can't open the area, clearly we will go offshore. The irony here--and it is very apparent--is just what constitutes this offer and why there is a lack of consideration for the merits of the offer. This would create the largest wilderness area in the United States. The amendment by the House, sent to the Senate conferees, would increase the total wilderness in ANWR to 17.4 million acres, the largest in the United States. The designated area is in the southern portion of the refuge, which actually has more species than the Coastal Plain, and the area is not as barren as the Coastal Plain. Basically, the proponents argue that for a couple of thousand acres of surface disturbance, the Greenies, so to speak, are getting 10.2 million acres of additional wilderness. This is an offer of 10.2 million acres for 2,000 acres because that is the footprint allowed in the House bill. The House bill says, out of that green area of 1.5 million acres, there can only be 2,000 acres dedicated to the footprint of developing the oil. So what the tradeoff is, is 10.2 million acres of additional wilderness, this whole thing, for the authority to go in and initiate an exploration in ANWR. It would have a mandate of only 2,000 acres. That is a pretty good trade, if you are trading acres for acres. On the other hand, it is my understanding the environmental community is not buying. Why are they not buying? Some might say they have an issue. Some might say that once they concede to this offer, it would show that their effort to stop any development in the Arctic would be terminated and development could go ahead. But if you recognize in exchange for 2,000 acres of surface disturbance you are adding 10.2 million acres to the wilderness areas--this happens to be the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve-- clearly you have to look at just what you are getting for that. This area is distinctly different from the area along the barren coastal plains, with high mountains, with headwaters, valleys, glaciers. There is more of an abundance of species--moose, caribou, snow geese, ducks, woodpeckers, all kinds of activities given the various species. From a strictly regional point of view, in 1980, when they divided up Alaska's lands and designated Federal land areas, Congress established at that time 13 new national parks, 16 wildlife refuges, and 2 national forests in Alaska as part of the 56 million acres of wilderness that was designated. As a matter of fact, the State of Alaska has currently 16 percent of the landmass of our State as a wilderness. This is well over half of the Nation's entire wilderness area, we are talking about, if they accept the offer of that 810 million acres. We already have the largest park, 9.7 million acres. But here we are today, talking about war with Iraq, war over oil. We are talking about sending our corporations to Russia, to Sakhalin, to Mexico, to develop the oil we need. And right here at home we have an opportunity to stimulate the economy with U.S. jobs, somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 jobs according the unions, building 19 new supertankers in U.S. shipyards that employ U.S. trades and U.S. skills, because the carriage of this oil has to move in U.S. flag vessels as it moves down from Alaska to the west coast of the United States. I am deeply disappointed that the Senate conferees, the majority on the other side, are not taking this offer seriously, of 10.2 million acres of additional wilderness for the rights to go in and initiate a drilling program to see if, indeed, there is oil of the abundance there would have to be there to go over and fill that pipeline that is already there. I want to walk you briefly through a couple of things that a lot of people do not understand; that is, the implication of what refuges are. Refuges, as evidenced by the charts we have here, indicate activity. These are refuges in Alabama, California, Louisiana, Oklahoma. These are areas in national wildlife refuges, in wetland management districts where oil and gas are currently being produced. In North Dakota, Montana, California, and specifically this map shows the States and the number of refuges where oil production takes place: California, Texas--we have one in Alaska, I might add. The point is, what we have in ANWR is a refuge. Congress has the authority to open it, just like it is opened in other areas. So we are not breaking any commitments here or setting any new precedents. It is simply a matter about which the House has made a proposal. I might add, there are other limitations in the authorization that would require that the Secretary can close down any exploration if, indeed, there is any disturbance associated with the calving of the caribou. The development activity would occur only in the wintertime. And the safeguards that are taken in the authorization proposed by the House are more stringent than exist in any other part of the world. I am going to go through a few other charts. I want to give you some idea of what we have done to this country and, in effect, to our national security. If you look at the west coast--Washington, Oregon, California, that gray area--that is estimated to hold 21 trillion cubic feet of gas offshore. We have taken this and put it off limits. We have taken the east coast, from Maine to Florida, 31 trillion cubic feet as evidenced by the dark blue, and said no oil and gas activity off the east coast. In the Gulf of Florida, we have taken that away on the lease sale. In the overthrust belt of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, we have taken that out because we require roadless areas in the parks. Where is the energy going to come from? Is it going to come from the Mideast where they have what we cannot have in this country, and that is a cartel? What do you think OPEC is? Most Members recognize it is a cartel. A cartel sets a price; they set a floor and set a ceiling; it is $22 to $28; today it is a little over $28. Our antitrust laws would not allow it. But what is the largest consumer of oil in the word? The United States. And we import most of it from the OPEC countries, and, as a consequence, we are becoming more and more beholden to them. We are currently importing about 55, 56 percent of our oil from overseas. Yet we have the opportunity to develop that right here at home. There are some people who assume this area in ANWR is an untouched area. There is the picture of the community that is there. That is a picture of Kaktovik. It is a very small Native community, Eskimo community, on the shores of the Arctic Ocean. You can see the ice out there. There are a couple of radar towers, a school, small stores. There is a landing facility. Real people live there. There are some of the kids. This is one of the community halls. They have the same dreams and aspirations. They are on a snow machine. There are a couple of kids going to school. My point is to suggest that somehow this is a untapped, unspoiled area--it is an extraordinarily hostile area. Joe is going to take a chart and turn it around and show you what it looks like in the wintertime. This is what it looks like in the wintertime. I am not exaggerating, it could be 40 or 50 below and you have what you call a whiteout condition. This is what it looks like. Here is some of the harsh tundra in the wintertime. It is tough-- tough. Temperatures are 40 or 50 below zero. Let me show you the technology that has been developed by the industry in this particular area of North America. There is an oil exploration program going on. You notice there are no gravel pits. There are no ordinary roads going in because what we have is technology that has been developed particularly for the Arctic where we can directionally drill. You don't just drill one hole with a rig like that. This was in the science portion of the New York Times. We directionally drill. We have 3-d sysmics that allow us to make visual cuts, if you will, through a technology to see these small pockets. You see these directional drills coming down in the black pockets. In ordinary times, you would drill straight down and hope to hit something. This technology has been compared to drilling a well here on the Capitol grounds and come up at gate 7 at Reagan National Airport. That kind of technology is what is used. I want to show you some more pictures of the Arctic and the ice roads. This is an ice road. An ice road is simply a situation where the snow is removed from the surface, and water is put down to make a hard- packed road. I cite that because this is the kind of activity that we are seeing move from the United States and move over to the Soviet Union. There is no reason why, since we have the likelihood of these discoveries being made here in the United States--for the life of me--we shouldn't consider the merits offered by the conferees of the House of Representatives. There are a couple of others that I want to show you. This one shows another resource that we have a great abundance of; that is, corn. The reference to corn and energy is ethanol. It takes roughly 2,000 acres of a corn-producing farm to produce the equivalent of 25 barrels of oil a day. If we look at the footprint, we are talking about a significant footprint. Two-thousand acres of ANWR can produce a million barrels of oil in a day. I just offer that comparison. I am going to conclude with some charts that we have seen from time to time because people are concerned about the wildlife in the area. This happens to be Prudhoe Bay. There is a rig. You see the caribou. They are not stuffed. They are real. They are there because they are not threatened. They are not harmed or run down with snow machines. As long as they have that security from any predators--which are, of course, naturally the wolves--they feel quite comfortable in their native surroundings as they pass through in a migratory manner. Here are a few pictures we have seen from time to time. These are three bears walking on the pipeline because it is much better than walking in the snow. It is beyond my comprehension why we are allowing ourselves to simply pass over what the House of Representatives has proposed; that is, a 2,000-acre limitation proposed in allowing exploration in ANWR. In addition, there is a proposal to add 10 million acres to the wilderness. It has received virtually no consideration by America's environmental community. They evidently aren't interested in more wilderness. They only seem to be interested in killing an opportunity to develop this reserve which would reduce our dependence on imported energy. Some say, well, it is going to take several years. I remind my colleagues that in 1995 this body passed out a bill in the Omnibus Act that authorized the opening of ANWR. It was vetoed by our President at that time. We would know today. We would have production today. When we talk about a timeframe, it is all relative to when you start. The fact that we have the infrastructure in the pipeline, and the pipeline is half full, and we have the prospects here of a major discovery, we could stimulate the American economy with new jobs more than any other single action that could be contemplated because this is a big jobs issues. It is steel, it is valves, and it is the things that are produced all over the United States. It takes the technical skill of U.S. labor and U.S. wherewithal and knowhow to do it. The industry stands ready. Only Congress can make the decision. The time to make that decision is clearly now while we have the opportunity. There is no logical reason to suggest that this isn't a good proposal and it shouldn't be considered. I am just fearful that it will be ignored. That would, indeed, be tragic. I encourage my colleagues and those listening to this debate to reflect a little bit on this opportunity. If we go out of session and don't take advantage of this opportunity and continue to import oil from Iraq at a time when we are contemplating going into a conflict with Iraq, I think future historians will regard this as a very irresponsible action by the Senate--because, someday, we all know we will go in there. It is just a question of time. Clearly, this is an appropriate time when we are contemplating action. I remind my colleagues, in conclusion, of one thought that I think captures the realization that we are going to continue to use a great abundance of oil. While we have other means of power generation, whether it be nuclear, hydro, natural gas, or coal, the world moves on oil. We don't move in and out of here on hot air. Something has to go in there to fuel the trucks and to fuel the trains. It is just not the growth in the United States. It is the growth of the world and the Third World nations. As they become more and more advanced, they are going to use more and more oil. We are cutting ourselves short from the standpoint of our national security, if, indeed, we pass up this opportunity to add an additional 10 million acres to the wilderness associated with ANWR with the tradeoff. We are only opening 2,000 acres. I think any one of us could take this on a bet. But for some reason or another, there is not enough pressure on America's environmental community to consider this proposal on the merits. I hope that our friends in the Israeli lobby will reflect a little bit on this because the threat to Israel is directly related to the cashflow associated with oil production from the OPEC nations, and particularly Iraq. I thank the President for his attention. I wish him a very pleasant weekend. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the occupant of the Chair a good afternoon. Mr. President, I wish to call my colleagues' attention to a situation associated with our increasing dependence on Iraq. Let me share with you a picture of Saddam Hussein, who is no stranger to this body. The title is: ``Oil as a Weapon.'' As we address the disposition of the resolution which the President has sent up to this body for action, we should recognize a few hard realities, and that is oil is funding terrorism, oil is funding the economy of Iraq, in spite of the efforts through the United Nations to try and control that funding, and the inconsistency of our policy where we are increasing our dependence on Iraqi oil, even at a time when we are contemplating going to war with Iraq, is indeed an inconsistency of a magnitude to which I think more Members should relate. If one reflects on the number of sorties we have flown over a period of time starting in 2000, even though we have been enforcing the no-fly zone since about 1992, Iraqi forces fired at Allied forces 642 engagements in 2000; 647 in 2001; and 480 times so far this year. What is happening is we are enforcing the no-fly zone. Allied forces returned fire 46 times so far this year. In the last weekend alone, Iraqi forces shot at allied forces 14 times. Iraqi forces have fired anti-aircraft artillery over 1,100 times, 600-some-odd rockets, fired nearly 60 surface-to-air missiles. This is not a game we are playing. We are basically in a limited war. To administer the no-fly zone, more than 6,400 personnel and almost 200 aircraft from the United States and Great Britain are involved in Operation Northern and Southern Watch. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, with each missile launched at our aircrews, Iraq expresses its contempt for the U.N. resolutions, a fact that must be kept in mind as their latest inspection offers are evaluated. I cannot begin to reflect on how many times we have heard the promise from the Iraqis and Saddam that he was going to allow inspectors to come in. Prior to the Persian Gulf war, I was over there with a number of Senators. Senator Dole was with us. We had an opportunity to have a short meeting with Saddam Hussein. It was clear then that he was a very ruthless, unpredictable, dangerous individual. At that time, he was attempting to ship in a very large cannon from the docks of London into Iraq with the capability of launching a long-range projectile. In the meeting, he dismissed that. He said it was parts for his refineries. The triggering mechanism was dismissed. I recall Senator Metzenbaum was talking to him about some of the human rights issues going on in Iraq. He took us out on the balcony and said: There are five of you and there are five helicopters. Go anywhere you want in Iraq. We happened to be up in Mousala at that time. Obviously, we declined. We have been dealing with this despot for an extended period of time. In the meantime, he has been developing weapons of mass destruction, as evidenced by another chart. It indicates the manner in which he generates this cashflow because without the cashflow, we all know his country cannot exist. This is the importation from Iraq during the first half of the year 2002, 600,000 barrels a day. That is an average price of $20. We know he is getting nearly $28 now. The point is, the U.S. is spending about $12.5 million each day by buying Iraqi oil; total U.S. dollars on oil from Iraq is $2.3 billion. Those reflect, on the average price, a little over $20. The source of this is from the Energy Information Administration. The occupant of the chair and I have some knowledge of finance. Cut off the cashflow of a country or an individual and you bring them to their knees. When you continue to buy their product, why obviously they continue to prosper. There is another chart that shows basically how American families are counting on energy from Saddam Hussein. This is a list of the Persian Gulf countries that are producing oil. Iraq's production is a little over 1 million barrels a day, but it is the fastest growing source, at least it has been up until a short time ago, of U.S. oil imports. The reason I go into some length on this is to again draw the attention of the inconsistency while we enforce no-fly zones, we buy his oil. We take the oil and put it in our airplanes. We bomb his targets. My colleagues have heard me time and again draw this comparison. He takes our money that we pay him for the oil, develops weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear capabilities, that he is developing obviously, and he is spending funds on developing a delivery capability that aims at our ally, Israel. That is an oversimplification, perhaps, but nevertheless one can draw that general conclusion. Today, we are beginning a very important debate on a resolution that we give our President whatever means are necessary to combat this threat to world peace and bring terrorists to their knees. I think there are going to be a couple of proposals that we are going to evaluate, but I am personally quite satisfied with the President's proposal. As we address this growing threat, we have to recognize we are dealing with an individual who simply cannot afford to step down voluntarily and depart the scene. We are dealing with an individual who has been around for a while. He is tough. He has taken out his family. He has taken out his own people. One can almost conclude that to some extent he is prepared to continue what was started on September 11 in this country. Now, we can wait. We can react after the fact. Had we known what al- Qaida was up to, clearly we would have initiated an action prior to the tragic event of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the tragedy in Pennsylvania. We would have initiated an action. We did not know. We did not have the intelligence. Now we are reflecting on what is going to cause us to act. Is it going to be a recognition that he is a threat, that he does train the al-Qaida, that he does fund the terrorists? At a certain point in time we have to face the reality: How would we feel leaving this session of the Congress without an action, and then find that he initiated an action and took lives? We would feel we had been derelict in our obligation. I think we have learned that Saddam has developed more capabilities. He has pilotless drones capable of spreading chemical weapons. We have learned that Saddam sends young men and women, as young as 13, to boot camp to learn to be soldiers under the guise of a program to keep the kids supposedly off the streets. Now, if we look back, In June of 1981, and this is going to be said many times on this floor, Israel's Prime Minister Begin observed Saddam building a military reactor with the help of the French. It was called the Osiraq reactor, a reactor capable of producing nuclear weapons. Four Israeli aircraft launched a surprise, preemptive attack, destroying the reactor and obviously setting back the Iraqi weapons program for many years. There was criticism from the world, but a decade later, during the gulf war, allied forces did not face a nuclear weapon capability from Iraq. The ways of addressing Saddam Hussein, I think, are the firmness of the President in his communication that we demand unlimited access throughout Iraq to our total satisfaction. I do not think Saddam Hussein is going to give it to us. On the other hand, I do not think Saddam Hussein is going to step down. We can try to develop an area of insecurity surrounding Saddam Hussein, but we have tried that time and again and he has been quite responsive in taking out those who he believed are not responsive to his whims or his demands. I suggest one of the first things we should do is not only initiate this particular action that has been set up by our President, but we should simply cut off the purchase of oil from Saddam Hussein. Some will argue that means somebody else is going to buy Saddam Hussein's oil and we are going to have to buy somebody else's, but there is a principle. I have an amendment that is part of the energy bill which I think should be passed by this body and that is simply to terminate oil imports into the United States from Saddam Hussein. Where does this oil go? This chart shows, Washington, California, Texas; a fair smattering of the country. It moves around because there is a market for it. No one cares whose oil is in their furnace or whose oil is refined into gasoline and propels their automobile. It is not much of a concern. Minnesota, New Jersey, name it, those are particular States that are getting oil from Iraq. As we address a situation relative to what we know about Saddam Hussein today, we have to develop from this knowledge a certain recognition that if he is not going to use the capabilities he has developed, then why is he developing them? Who is at risk from the standpoint of the 22,500 gallons of anthrax? We have had experience with anthrax around here. Or 100,000 gallons of toxin that causes botulism. Or 200 tons of VX nerve gas. Or 350 tons of sarin gas. Or 800 tons of mustard gas. Those are weapons of mass destruction. They are weapons of terror. They cause agonizing death. Are these the weapons a country would use to defend itself? Are these the weapons of an aggressor that would go to whatever means is necessary to prevail or fund the developing aspects of world terrorism? The answer is very clear. Saddam Hussein is our enemy. The world must isolate him, cut him off, and hopefully coax his regime to an end. The battlefield is one option. Diplomacy is another. We have had experience with both. We should be setting an example. The first thing we should do as the United States--the world leader everyone is looking toward to accomplish a regime change in Saddam Hussein and resolve our concern over the development of his weapons of mass destruction--is to cut off his cash flow. The fact we continue to engage in the importation of oil from Iraq is a grave mistake. It is a great inconsistency of foreign policy. I hope as we address the disposition of the energy bill, the first thing we will do will be to terminate our purchases from Saddam Hussein. Energy

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help rectify a long-standing problem that adversely affects an array of citizens, landowners, and government entities in Alaska. The Alaska Navigable Waters Commission legislation will create a joint Federal-State commission to establish a process to facilitate determinations of the navigable status of lakes, rivers, and streams in Alaska. This is a vital step in determining the ownership of the riverbanks and submerged lands. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act, every state gains title to the submerged lands that underlie navigable waterways within its borders upon entering the Union. Or, I should say, is supposed to gain title. For decades now, the State of Alaska has been in the unique position of having unresolved navigability determinations for tens of thousands of waterways around the state. This leaves not only the ownership status in limbo but causes unnecessary jurisdictional problems and headaches. This is an intolerable position for Alaskans. In fact, since Alaska became a State in 1959, only 13 of its more than 22,000 rivers have been determined to be navigable, and the status of well over one million lakes has been left in question. The only recourse available to the State has been to pursue litigation against the United States, a time-consuming, expensive, and unwarranted requirement. To date, the Federal Government has been unwilling to sit down with the State and make these determinations, even though for the vast majority of these waterways, no reasonable person could disagree as to the navigability of the waters under well-established legal standards. I want to stress to my colleagues that this bill does not change in any way the legal criteria for navigability determinations. Those have been well settled in a body of Federal case law, led by the Gulkana decision, that stands undisturbed by this legislation. What the bill does is create a joint, Federal-State body to engage in dialogue that will help to resolve these long-standing disputes, and bring Alaska the same legal rights enjoyed by its 49 sister States. Creating a joint commission to resolve thorny Federal-State issues is not a novel concept. In 1971, the Congress and the State of Alaska created a joint commission to assist in the land-use planning process created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This process streamlines communication between the State and Federal governments, and creates an infrastructure for ongoing negotiation over difficult issues. It also obviates the need for litigation over the status of those waterways where agreement can be reached. I think we all can agree that anything that reduces the need for litigation is a good thing. The Alaska legislature has considered companion legislation, introduced by the Senate President, Rick Halford, and the Speaker of the Alaska House, Brian Porter. That legislation has now been approved by both houses of the legislature. We should enact Federal legislation so that we may join the State of Alaska in seeking to rectify the problem. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, Alaska is supposed to enjoy the same rights and privileges as all other states. This bill is another important step in making that national principle a reality.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to resolve the issue of snowmobile access in Denali National Park in my home State of Alaska. Denali National Park and Preserve encompasses just under 5 million acres in the interior of Alaska, including North America's highest mountain, 20,320-foot Mount McKinley. Large glaciers of the Alaska Range, caribou, Dall sheep, moose, grizzly bears and timber wolves live within this great landscape. The original Mt. McKinley National Park was created on February 26, 1917 and additional acreage was added in 1922 and 1932, bringing the park size to 1.9 million acres. In September of 1978 a separate Denali National Monument was proclaimed. In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA. ANILCA incorporated Mt. McKinley National Park and the National Monument to create the 4.7, plus million acre Denali National Park and Preserve. Section 1110(a) of ANILCA, mandates motorized vehicle access for the purpose of engaging in traditional activities in specific conservation system units. However, the National Park Service recently redefined ``traditional use,'' and instead ordered the ``old Mt. McKinley National Park closed to snowmobiles, which common sense dictates are motorized vehicles. For the past two years,this closure has been before the Federal Courts in Alaska in litigation filed by the International Snowmobile Manufactures Association and the Alaska State Snowmobilers Association against the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service. A few months ago, the plaintiffs dismissed their suit against the Government, and, with the approval of the Department of Justice, both parties are seeking a more reasoned legislative solution to address the access issue once and for all. This legislation provides such a solution, it addresses snowmobile access in the 1.9 million acre ``Old Park'' by permanently excluding approximately 1.5 million acres north of the Alaska Range from snow machine access while reaffirming the applicability to Section 1110(a) access for this actibviey in approximately 400,000 acres south of the Alaska Range. In short, this solution eliminates conflict between the various user groups, and the many issues relating to wildlife and natural resource protection. I thank the Alaska State Snowmobile Association, Inc. and the International Snowmobile Manufactures Association, for their actions to dismiss the legal challenge involving the used of snow machines in Denali National Park and Preserve. I look forward to working with the Associations; the Department of the Interior; the National Park Service; my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol; as well as other interested parties, for their assistance in developing environmentally and scientifically sound decisions and solution that will achieve both reasonable access and protection for the wildlife and valuable natural resources found in this outstanding unit of the National Park System. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help rectify a long-standing problem that adversely affects an array of citizens, landowners, and government entities in Alaska. The Alaska Navigable Waters Commission legislation will create a joint Federal-State commission to establish a process to facilitate determinations of the navigable status of lakes, rivers, and streams in Alaska. This is a vital step in determining the ownership of the riverbanks and submerged lands. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act, every state gains title to the submerged lands that underlie navigable waterways within its borders upon entering the Union. Or, I should say, is supposed to gain title. For decades now, the State of Alaska has been in the unique position of having unresolved navigability determinations for tens of thousands of waterways around the state. This leaves not only the ownership status in limbo but causes unnecessary jurisdictional problems and headaches. This is an intolerable position for Alaskans. In fact, since Alaska became a State in 1959, only 13 of its more than 22,000 rivers have been determined to be navigable, and the status of well over one million lakes has been left in question. The only recourse available to the State has been to pursue litigation against the United States, a time-consuming, expensive, and unwarranted requirement. To date, the Federal Government has been unwilling to sit down with the State and make these determinations, even though for the vast majority of these waterways, no reasonable person could disagree as to the navigability of the waters under well-established legal standards. I want to stress to my colleagues that this bill does not change in any way the legal criteria for navigability determinations. Those have been well settled in a body of Federal case law, led by the Gulkana decision, that stands undisturbed by this legislation. What the bill does is create a joint, Federal-State body to engage in dialogue that will help to resolve these long-standing disputes, and bring Alaska the same legal rights enjoyed by its 49 sister States. Creating a joint commission to resolve thorny Federal-State issues is not a novel concept. In 1971, the Congress and the State of Alaska created a joint commission to assist in the land-use planning process created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This process streamlines communication between the State and Federal governments, and creates an infrastructure for ongoing negotiation over difficult issues. It also obviates the need for litigation over the status of those waterways where agreement can be reached. I think we all can agree that anything that reduces the need for litigation is a good thing. The Alaska legislature has considered companion legislation, introduced by the Senate President, Rick Halford, and the Speaker of the Alaska House, Brian Porter. That legislation has now been approved by both houses of the legislature. We should enact Federal legislation so that we may join the State of Alaska in seeking to rectify the problem. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. Under the Equal Footing Doctrine, Alaska is supposed to enjoy the same rights and privileges as all other states. This bill is another important step in making that national principle a reality.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to resolve the issue of snowmobile access in Denali National Park in my home State of Alaska. Denali National Park and Preserve encompasses just under 5 million acres in the interior of Alaska, including North America's highest mountain, 20,320-foot Mount McKinley. Large glaciers of the Alaska Range, caribou, Dall sheep, moose, grizzly bears and timber wolves live within this great landscape. The original Mt. McKinley National Park was created on February 26, 1917 and additional acreage was added in 1922 and 1932, bringing the park size to 1.9 million acres. In September of 1978 a separate Denali National Monument was proclaimed. In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA. ANILCA incorporated Mt. McKinley National Park and the National Monument to create the 4.7, plus million acre Denali National Park and Preserve. Section 1110(a) of ANILCA, mandates motorized vehicle access for the purpose of engaging in traditional activities in specific conservation system units. However, the National Park Service recently redefined ``traditional use,'' and instead ordered the ``old Mt. McKinley National Park closed to snowmobiles, which common sense dictates are motorized vehicles. For the past two years,this closure has been before the Federal Courts in Alaska in litigation filed by the International Snowmobile Manufactures Association and the Alaska State Snowmobilers Association against the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service. A few months ago, the plaintiffs dismissed their suit against the Government, and, with the approval of the Department of Justice, both parties are seeking a more reasoned legislative solution to address the access issue once and for all. This legislation provides such a solution, it addresses snowmobile access in the 1.9 million acre ``Old Park'' by permanently excluding approximately 1.5 million acres north of the Alaska Range from snow machine access while reaffirming the applicability to Section 1110(a) access for this actibviey in approximately 400,000 acres south of the Alaska Range. In short, this solution eliminates conflict between the various user groups, and the many issues relating to wildlife and natural resource protection. I thank the Alaska State Snowmobile Association, Inc. and the International Snowmobile Manufactures Association, for their actions to dismiss the legal challenge involving the used of snow machines in Denali National Park and Preserve. I look forward to working with the Associations; the Department of the Interior; the National Park Service; my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol; as well as other interested parties, for their assistance in developing environmentally and scientifically sound decisions and solution that will achieve both reasonable access and protection for the wildlife and valuable natural resources found in this outstanding unit of the National Park System. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, some remarks were made by the majority leader last night that I think need to be countered. I will take a moment to respond to some of the statements he made last evening. Last night, some members of the majority accused the Republican side of the aisle of attempting to filibuster the energy bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the debate on this issue began, we have disposed of 49 amendments, 21 offered by Republicans and 27 offered by the Democratic side. Countless other amendments have been worked out off the floor with the majority, and I compliment the majority leader and the chairman, Senator Bingaman, as well as the staffs who have been working on these amendments. Prior to the recess, the cloakroom asked for a potential list of amendments from each side of the aisle. There were fewer than 50 amendments on the Republican side and over double that amount on the Democratic side. Republican amendments were all energy related; Democratic amendments included Medicaid and voting rights. Over the recess, this side of the aisle worked to pare down its list of amendments and is reducing it dramatically to a realistic number of only a handful which should require votes. As I understand, there are nearly 85 to 95 amendments on the Democratic side of the aisle. The only filibuster I know of is on the other side of the aisle, being pledged by Senator Lieberman and Senator Kerry. I want my colleagues to know, and the majority leader specifically, that I am willing to enter into a time agreement with the majority leader this morning or any other time, to secure an up-down vote on the ANWR amendment which I intend to offer later this week. Again, so my colleagues understand, I am willing to enter into a time agreement with the majority this morning to secure an up-down vote on the ANWR amendment which I intend to offer later this week. I am inclined, unfortunately, to assume that the majority leader would not agree, but I offer it anyway. This legislation is certainly a priority from our side of the aisle. It is a priority for the administration. I am willing to stay night and day to get the bill done, get it to conference, and on to the President as soon as possible. With the issues emanating from the Middle East, clearly there is justification for moving as rapidly as possible. I don't want anyone to be fooled by any musing that we are filibustering this bill. The facts simply do not support this. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will give my colleagues a little history and background because I do not think there has been an awful lot of identification as to the credit and penalty costs associated with the renewable portfolio standard. I commend the majority leader for his work, our staff, and the Senator from Wyoming as well. What I think we have done is, first of all, we have made some progress. We have debated an amendment that would have mandated a 20 percent renewable. I believe that was by Senator Jeffords. We have, I think, by amendment, strengthened the energy bill, and I think it is time, in view of the amendment offered by Senator Craig, to again highlight some of the specifics so each Member's office and each Member understands the significance of what this renewable portfolio means to them or their own individual constituents. Oftentimes we get enamored with the reality that the renewable is free; it is a renewable. Therefore, it really does not cost us anything, and as a consequence we ought to get aboard and support it. Senator Craig's amendment proposes striking the electricity title of the Daschle-Bingaman amendment, as modified by the bipartisan amendment, and replacing it with the Senate-adopted reliability provision and the consumer protections of the underlying Daschle amendment. I think a couple of comments are in order relative to the title that Senator Craig proposes to delete. When the original Daschle amendment was introduced, I was concerned, as I indicated, about its electricity provisions. They were seriously flawed. We gave some examples of those concerns. As originally written, the Daschle amendment would have empowered the Federal regulators to micromanage the marketplace. I think most Members were fearful that was not in the best order of the marketplace nor appropriate for the Federal regulators to dwell in that area. As originally written, the Daschle amendment would have allowed the FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to order electric utilities to divest assets. Further, as originally written, the Daschle amendment would have preempted the States, giving FERC the authority to regulate the many aspects of retail matters instead of State public utility commissions. So again, it would have given FERC broad authority on many aspects of retail matters, instead of the State public utility commissions. For those of us who believe local control and regulation is more responsive than one size fits all, that was troublesome. Further, as originally written, the Daschle amendment did not deregulate and allow the market to work. Instead, it had government pick winners and government pick losers and decide what is in the consumers' best interest. In short, as originally written, the Daschle amendment was a return to the old-fashioned Federal command and control of the market. But we have come some way since the introduction of the Daschle amendment, and what we have now is the reality that the Senate has agreed to a series of amendments authored by my good friend Senator Thomas, most of which was done by unanimous consent. I appreciate working with the majority on that. Senator Thomas's amendments address many of the key problems with the Daschle bill, including reliability. So I think we have made progress. Had those not been adopted, I very possibly would have found it necessary to offer a motion to strike the electric title. With these amendments, we now have a bill which, No. 1, protects consumers; No. 2, it streamlines regulation; and, No. 3, it enhances competition while preserving State authority. It ensures reliability of the grid, allows regional flexibility, and promotes renewable energy and other types of generation. One might ask, with the adoption of these amendments: Are the electricity provisions perfect? Well, the answer is no. They are better, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Where is it going to be done? In conference or other places, or perhaps on the Senate floor. I think that is one of the reasons we should take a look at this matter one more time. For example, the reliability still contains, in my opinion, an unrealistic renewable portfolio mandate that is going to cost consumers more than $12 billion per year and which undercuts the ability of States to craft a renewable portfolio program that protects their consumers and recognizes local needs and concerns. With regard to the cost to consumers of the renewable portfolio standard of 10 percent, if we take one area of the country, Connecticut Light and Power, the customers of that particular utility are going to have to pay another $9.5 million per year. That is going to be split up. Florida Power and Light, of interest to the present Presiding Officer: That is going to cost the consumers of Florida $264 million per year. That is going to be spread out. To suggest this renewable mandate is free is not only misleading but totally inaccurate. Georgia Power: It is going to cost the consumers of that utility $223 million per year. Out West, Hawaiian Power, far West: $22 million more a year. Commonwealth Edison in Chicago: $232 million more a year. Now, that is what the mandate covers. I could go on into each utility and break it down because we have that information. So if we recognize, as each Member and as each office should, the cost to the consumer and the realism that the consumer is not going to be motivated to respond to the Members until such time as they see it on their utility bill, they are going to say: Hey, what happened? Is this a surcharge? What is this? This is going to be the cost associated with the renewable mandate. Again, I think it undercuts the ability of the States to craft their own renewable portfolio programs and protect their consumers and recognize local needs and concerns, because this is a one-size-fits- all. I would have preferred to have seen the States have the ability to address their responsibility on renewables, but the majority prevailed and that amendment did not carry. In addition, the electric title still does not address the need for new electric generation and transmission. We saw the California blackout situation. We saw the price spikes that occurred because there was not enough power, not because there are not enough windmills in California. So as it currently stands, the electric title is greatly improved from where it started. However, it still needs considerable work. I have a chart behind me, and hopefully we have a pointer, but I want to explain a little bit about this cost because I think it is paramount to the discussion. What we have over a period of time from the year 2005 is the escalating costs per year of renewables. It basically runs, starting in the year 2005, roughly $12 billion a year. So if we go from 2005 to 2017 or 2018, the overall cost accumulated over 13 years is about $88 billion. That is what it will cost. It is $12 billion, roughly, per year. The red on the chart indicates the penalty payments which will cost an additional $12 billion. So we are looking somewhere in the area of roughly a $100 billion cost to the consumers as a consequence of the mandate of a 10 percent renewable portfolio standard being dictated by the Congress of the United States. Maybe many Members believe it is worth that. I don't think we should have mandated this from the standpoint of one size fits all. Many States have addressed the renewable matter with their own proposals. That would have been much better. However, this is what the consumer faces. Make no mistake, when the calls start coming in, each Member's office had better be prepared for an explanation of why the rates are higher to counter the presumption that somehow renewables are basically available at no cost to the consumer. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I would like to have an explanation from the New York Times, as a consequence of where they were in 1987 and 1998 and 1999 and in 2001 being against it and now they are critical when we are trying to do something about it. Yet they don't accept the responsibility of proposing a way to reduce that dependence. I believe we need to reduce our dependence, free ourselves from the Saddam Husseins. We have talked about CAFE standards. Do you know what the debate on CAFE standards was all about? It was about safety. We could have increased mileage, but we were concerned about the safety of our automobiles in relationship to families moving our children. We were ready to trade off. And we did, by majority vote, increase CAFE standards with the belief that we would be stripped of some of the safety features. The indication was we would lose hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives. As we address where we are today, we ought to look at some of the facts. We saw an article that appeared in the USGS about 10 days ago indicating if we opened up this area, somehow we would risk the Porcupine caribou. Another chart shows caribou relative to the renewability of what amounts to a natural resource. This is the caribou frolicking in Prudhoe Bay. The reason they are frolicking is nobody shoots them. They become very accustomed to a modest amount of activity as long as they are not threatened. If they hear the snow machines, they bolt like cattle on a rampage. This is the western herd. It is the herd that frequents the oilfields of Prudhoe Bay. The important thing to recognize with this herd is they have grown dramatically from 3,000 animals to 26,000 animals. There are few predators and very few wolves. As a consequence, the herd has grown dramatically. The Porcupine herd is in a different part of the State. I will show the migration pattern of this herd. It bears some semblance to reality. My critics who say USGS indicated in its report that the caribou might be affected by oil activity did not reflect on a knowledge of certain migratory movements of this particular Porcupine herd. This chart shows the boundary between the United States and Canada. We can see the northwest territories. This happens to be a Canadian highway called the Dempster Highway. This is the general path of the migration of the Porcupine caribou herd in purple. It goes into the 1002 area. The point is there is no fence between Canada and Alaska. In their migratory path they cross the highway. The highest incidence of the mortality of this particular herd is crossing the Dempster Highway, not getting hit by trucks and cars. That is where the people hunt. That is where they take them. They are very easy to get through. Drive the highway. This is the Arctic Highway. It is pretty rugged, but it is accessible. If you are concerned about the effect on the caribou, consider the number of caribou taken for subsistence and other reasons in that area. They come in the summertime and calf. The question is, Do they calf in the 1002 area, the area where we have at risk, the potential of caribou that might be lost as a result of calving? We have a chart that shows, over a period from 1983 to 2000, the general calving area. Green is the calving area. This chart was put together by the Department of Interior. This is the 1002 area. This is what is at risk. In 1999, there was some calving in the area; some calving in the area in other years. The good news is there will not be any activity there during that time. Let me show you what the area looks like for about 10\1/2\ months of the year. It is a harsh environment of ice and snow with virtually no wildlife activity in this severe time. This is generally a fair picture of the Arctic Coastal Plain in the 1002 area in the wintertime. This happens to be a clear day in the wintertime. To see what it looks like most of the time in the winter with what is called whiteouts, where you have absolutely no relationship between the snow and the clouds, it looks just white. Pilots fly into it only on instruments because you cannot see the ground. If you turn the picture back you can see what it looks like on a clear day, which is not most of the time. On a clear day, there is a difference between the ground and the sky. When it is a whiteout condition, cloudy and snowy, it is all white. There are a lot of flying accidents when people lose their horizon and are not proficient on instruments. As we consider the debate and recognize we have specialized technology now--development occurs only in the wintertime--we can put aside some of the USGS estimate that somehow we are going to have a significant impact. This activity is only going to occur in the wintertime. When the short summer comes up--and it looks somewhat like this photo. This is the tundra. This is a well that was drilled. As you can see, there are no roads because we use ice roads. There will be no activity during the time that the caribou calve in this area. Then, of course, we have the continued debate as to the validity of one report vis-a-vis another report. The USGS confirmed this week that the caribou would not be affected by exploration because the House bill, which is what is before the Senate, only allows 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres to be developed. As we debate this issue on the energy bill, even though we have not offered the amendment, I did want to reflect a little bit on the New York Times' inconsistency. On the one hand, they supported it in 1978 and 1979, and then rejected it in 2001, and now are criticizing the Congress for not coming up with some methodology to reduce our dependence on imports. If you are going to reduce it, you might as well go where you are most likely to find a substantial reserve of oil and that happens to be this area of Alaska. For those who say this is some kind of a pristine area, where there has been no development of any kind, let me remind you there is a village there. It is the village of Kaktovik. Real people live there. There are kids there. This is a little community hall. There are about 300 kids there. There are people who live there. They are on the snow machine there. We have some other pictures of the village itself. This will give you some idea. This is in the 1002. This is Kaktovik. There are people who live there. There is an airstrip there, a radar station, a school. Here are some kids going to school in the morning. Nobody shovels their snow. These are happy kids, looking forward to a future. What is that future? Does anybody around here know what a honey bucket is? A honey bucket is what you have when you don't have indoor plumbing and you need indoor plumbing because outdoor plumbing doesn't work in the wintertime. You and I and everybody else, we are used to water, sewer, the conveniences. These people have the same dreams and aspirations. How do they achieve those dreams and aspirations? By a better lifestyle, by a tax base, by jobs, by opportunities. Do these people support opening this area? I think we all know the answer to that. The answer is a very affirmative yes. Are they entitled to have development on their own land, over which they have some control, the State of Alaska, or the Federal Environmental Protection Agency? This may be a little stark. I am not commenting on the reality. But this is what a honey bucket looks like. That is what they cost, about $20. You empty it yourself. It is not what we are used to. But when you do not have sewer and water, that is what you get. I don't know how long that has to stay up to make the impression, but that is real. If you have not tried one, it is not the most gratifying experience. But if there is no other alternative, that is what you have. I bring this to relate to those who are somewhat above that, a higher echelon, who somehow do not consider how real people out there live. They assume we all live kind of alike and the dreams and aspirations of an aboriginal people should not be considered in this debate. Why shouldn't they? They have rights. They have representation. They elected me to the Senate and I am representing their interests. They want a better life and I think they are entitled to it. They should enjoy, at least to a degree of attainability, some of the things we take for granted. We will be having an extended debate on this ANWR issue. For the people of my State, let's once and for all try to keep the arguments accurate. Let's not mislead people by saying it is a 6-month supply. That is absolutely ludicrous, and I assume most of my colleagues have the intelligence and fairness to recognize that argument doesn't hold oil. Not only are we not talking about a 6-month supply, some say it will take 10 years. This is the other chart that shows the infrastructure that is already in suggests we can expedite permitting if the oil is, indeed, there, in the volume it would have to be. I might add, this little red thing is the footprint of what 2,000 acres would be out of this 1.5 million acres in green. This is the footprint authorizing the 2,000 acres, and this whole area is 19 million acres. Make no mistake about it, it is a very small footprint in an area that already has the development of Kaktovik and the Eskimo people who support it. As we look at the issue of a 6-month supply--we have countered that. Can it be open in a reasonable period of time? What we have here--it doesn't show on this particular chart--we have a discovery here called Badame. It is a British Petroleum discovery. It has not proven out. But there is a pipeline from the existing 800-mile pipeline over to Badame so we would only need about 45 miles of pipeline to get to ANWR. Once the discoveries were made, and the discoveries would have to be substantive or we would never be able to afford the development, a pipeline could be run over there in a very expeditious manner in my opinion--one winter construction season--and we could have ANWR online in 2.5 to 3 years. Let's remember, in 1995 we passed ANWR. It was vetoed by our President in the omnibus package. So we would today at least have oil flowing. To suggest we cannot do it safely, to suggest it is going to take 10 years is totally unrealistic. To suggest with the new technology it would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife is, again, without any scientific foundation. We have some other characters here. We call them bears. We have polar bears and we have brown bears. The significance of the polar bear-- these are not polar bears; these happen to be brown bears. Grizzles is their common denomination. These guys are walking the pipeline because it is easier than walking in the snow. You and I would do the same thing if we were out for a walk. The point is, these are not disturbing because there is no threat. People say: What about the polar bears? We do not have many polar bears in this area, but we have a few. This is from the Washington Post. It is kind of an interesting, I guess, comparison, because this was a new field found over at Alpine. It came in initially about 100,00 barrels a day. That is a lot of oil for one little field. The footprint is just that much, probably 20 acres. This particular picture down here shows some polar bears, but they do not indicate where that picture was taken. This picture was not taken in ANWR. It was taken way over on the Arctic area known as Barrow, probably 600 or 700 miles west. But the point I want to make with regard to the polar bear--and it is legitimate--is the greatest contribution we made to the polar bear is the Marine Animal Act because you can't take polar bear as a trophy. You can't hunt them. You can in Russia or Canada, but you cannot do it in the United States; so they are protected. To suggest somehow that a mild amount of activity associated with development of ANWR is going to jeopardize the polar bear--the greatest jeopardy to the polar bear is somebody going out and shooting them. I hate to be so crass, but that is the factual reality. What we have here, again, is America's extreme environmental community using this, lobbying it very heavily. At a time when clearly we have a lot of unrest in the Middle East, the New York Times is proposing Congress hasn't done anything to relieve our dependence, and there is the recognition that now we are starting a debate, very soon, on the issue of opening ANWR. I encourage Members to try to sort out fact from fiction, as this debate goes on; recognizing that America stands to gain an awful lot from opening this area up. There would be significant job creation. It is in the interest of our economy. It is estimated that somewhere in the area of 250,000 jobs would be created. America's unions are virtually 100 percent behind opening up this area because they know it can be done safely. They know it is a jobs issue. Not only are they convinced it is in the interest of our economy, but America's veterans are virtually unanimous in support of opening it. The reason the veterans support it is quite obvious to all. It would forestall the possibility that American troops would have to go overseas and fight a war over oil in a foreign land. In conclusion, I hope Members really relate to doing what is right for America, what is right for jobs, and what is right for the veterans. I might add that the Israeli lobbying group is virtually 100 percent supportive of developing the Coastal Plain and relieving our dependence on Mideast oil. When you start looking down the list of supporters on the other side, it is the environmental groups. There is no sound science to support their contention because we can do it safely. It is an extraordinary resource available for this country. It can be developed in a relatively short period of time. It can be done without jeopardizing animal life. For those who claim to be experts, I suggest they go up there, talk to the people, take a look at it, and recognize the significance of the dreams and aspirations of those people who have to depend on this kind of living when there are alternatives that you and I take for granted. This is the hard reality of the lifestyle of some of my people who want a better lifestyle, and they expect that the Senate will protect their interests. I yield the floor.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I call attention this afternoon to an article that appeared in the New York Times. It is entitled ``The Missing Energy Strategy.'' I want to quote it. The paper details what they describe as: Washington's sorry failure to devise a balanced strategy to reduce America's reliance on gulf imports and give itself greater maneuvering room in the war on terrorism and other foreign policy issues as well. I think the paper is correct. We desperately need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and free ourselves from the dangerous influence that leaders such as Saddam Hussein have over the future of American families. Let me refer to the New York Times specifically because they have a mixed message on relief. They are criticizing Washington's sorry failure to devise a balanced strategy to reduce America's reliance on gulf imports. This chart shows a chronology of the editorial position of the New York Times over time. In 1987, they said: Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge . . . the most promising untapped source of oil in North America. They further state: A decade ago, precautions in the design and construction of the 1,000-mile-long Alaska pipeline saved the land from serious damage. They are quite specific. They say that ``precautions in the design saved the land from serious damage.'' They further state: If oil companies, government agencies and environmentalists approach the development of the refuge with comparable care, disaster should be avoidable. They acknowledge, if you will, that we completed an 800-mile pipeline from the Arctic Ocean to Valdez. They say 1,000 miles, but it is obviously less than that. The significance of that is the acknowledgment that it was done safely. It is now about 28 years old. It continues to be one of the construction wonders of the world and continues to supply this Nation with about 20 percent of the total crude oil produced by the United States. The New York Times, obviously, supported that. Then in an editorial in June of 1988, they said: . . . the potential is enormous and the environmental risks are modest . . . the likely value of the oil far exceeds plausible estimates of the environmental cost. . . . the total acreage affected by development represents only a fraction of 1 percent of the North Slope wilderness. Then they further state: . . . But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence over the nation's energy needs. Let me repeat that. They say: . . . But it is hard to see why absolutely pristine preservation of this remote wilderness should take precedence over the nation's energy needs. Then March 30, 1989, they say: . . . Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground . . . The single most promising source of oil in America lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay. They are talking about ANWR: . . . The single most promising source of oil in America lies on the north coast of Alaska, a few hundred miles east of the big fields at Prudhoe Bay. Furthermore: . . . Washington can't afford to treat the [Exxon Valdez] accident as a reason for fencing off what may be the last great oilfield in the nation. Here they are in 1987, in 1988, and again in 1989. One would assume the New York Times would be consistent. As I indicated in their editorial of yesterday, they said: Washington's sorry failure to devise a balanced strategy to reduce America's reliance on Gulf imports and give itself greater maneuvering room in the war on terrorism and other foreign policy issues as well. Madam President, as we look at where we are today and recognize the tremendous vulnerability this Nation has undertaken as a consequence of increasing our dependence on imported oil, and we realize that within the last few days with the announcement by Saddam Hussein that he will terminate for 30 days oil production from Iraq and then with the followup activity in Venezuela by PDVSA, which is a government-owned oil company, that has gone on strike, this Nation is now devoid of 30 percent of its total oil imports. If we add up what we get from Saddam Hussein, Iraq, nearly 1 million barrels a day, plus the production from Venezuela, that constitutes 30 percent--Madam President, 30 percent--of this country's imported oil. Where are we going to pick up the difference? It is interesting because the Saudis have indicated they have unused capacity. So the Saudis are preparing, at least we understand, to make up the difference. I wonder how that is going to set with the Arab world. I wonder how that is going to set with Iran, Libya, and clearly Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, isn't it rather ironic that on the one hand we find ourselves dealing with a nation such as Iraq, a nation where we have been, for all practical purposes, in a standoff enforcing a no-fly zone since 1992. We have maintained almost what would be compared to an aerial blockade. We have put the lives of our men and women at risk since 1992. We have bombed Iraq three times already this year. He has attempted to take our aircraft down. We have put the lives of our men and women at risk. The quid pro quo for that is an inconsistency in foreign policy. On the one hand, we import his oil, we put it in our planes and bomb him, and he takes our money and keeps his Republican Guard alive and develops weapons of mass destruction and aims them at our ally Israel. He may have biological weapons. He clearly has a delivery system. Then where are we with our relationship with the United Nations? We had an understanding in the U.N. Oil for Food Program that we would have inspectors in Iraq and we would be able to observe just what Saddam Hussein was up to. We have not had any inspectors there for over 2 \1/2\ years. As a consequence, we are left with the reality that we really do not know what he has. Let's take this chronology a little further. We had reason to believe that terrorism was a threat to the United States. We had some reason to believe that al-Qaida, Afghanistan, and bin Laden were potential threats to our Nation, but we do not have any solid evidence that they were about to undertake those events on September 11, events which utilized for the first time an aircraft as a weapon. We see this pattern unfolding where clearly had we had the intelligence, we might have been able to intervene in preventing that disaster that changed America. Do we have the same exposure, the same potential with Saddam Hussein? If he is developing weapons of mass destruction, as we have every reason to believe he is, the question is, When is he going to use them and who is he going to use them on? Let's take this a little further as we advance the realities of just what Saddam Hussein is up to. He has announced he is going to increase from $10,000 to $25,000 the payment to survivors of anyone who, as a target of terrorism, gives up their lives to take out other lives associated with the activities in Israel. He will pay that family $25,000. That is certainly an incentive for those willing to give up their lives and make a sacrifice in their religious belief associated with consideration or payment for taking the lives of other individuals. What is funding that? Where does Saddam Hussein get the money to pay survivors of those who initiate an action taking their own lives and taking the lives of many others? It is obvious. It comes from oil. That is the cashflow that Saddam Hussein has, and every time we go to the pump, we are adding to Saddam Hussein's cashflow indirectly because while Saddam Hussein is initiating the export from Iraq of about 1.1 million barrels a day, it is the fastest growing source of United States oil imports. So American families are counting on Saddam Hussein for energy, and in so counting on Saddam Hussein, we are basically furthering the incentive for those who want to sacrifice their lives to initiate a terrorist attack such as using themselves as a human bomb. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not know what it is, and nobody has pointed it out to me specifically. Going back to the New York Times, there was a recommendation back in 1987, 1988, and 1989, and today we have a criticism from the New York Times that Washington is a sorry failure because we have not devised a balanced strategy. The current position of the New York Times is contrary to that as expressed in editorials of March of 2001 and January of 2001, and it is rather ironic. I will share the current position as late as March of last year and in January of last year. I quote from the January 1 New York Times: The country needs a rational energy strategy but the first step in that strategy should not be to start punching holes in the Arctic Refuge. Finally, as this page has noted many times before, the relative trivial amounts of recoverable oil in the refuge cannot possibly justify the potential corruption of a unique and irreplaceable natural area. They say the ``relative trivial amounts.'' What are we talking about? Does anybody know how much oil is in ANWR? If we look at this large chart, we can get somewhat of a picture and get an understanding because over in the black there is this 800-mile pipeline. That infrastructure is already in place. It was built in the 1970s. That particular pipeline, when Prudhoe Bay was operating at full capacity, was about 2 million barrels a day. Today it is a little over a million barrels a day. So the capacity for increased oil development is clearly there. This is the ANWR area. It is 19 million acres. It is the size of the State of South Carolina. It is a very large piece of real estate. This is the area that is in question because out of this 19 million acres, this is the only area that Congress has the authority to open because the rest of the area is in two classes. One is a wilderness and the other is a wildlife refuge. There is 8.5 million acres in a wilderness set aside in perpetuity, and that is this light color. The darker buff color is a refuge, and that is about 9 million acres. This 1.5 million acres is what is at risk, and the New York Times now says the ``relative trivial amounts of recoverable oil.'' We may have some indication of what amount of oil there might be, but it is a guess because the geologists have never been allowed into this area and they have never been able to determine through the 3D seismic what this area might contain. They have estimates based upon 2D geological advanced efforts prior to 1980, but we do know we have a new technology that makes the footprint smaller. I might add, this came out of the New York Times. This is their science. This gives an idea of the new technology. When one used to drill, they drilled straight down and either hit or did not hit. With 3D seismic and directional drilling, the footprint from one well can be many derivatives. One could poke out here through directional drilling, down here, or down here, pick up all of these other areas, which makes the latest drilling technology applicable to reduce environmental damage. The technology that is used is very different. We use ice drills, and I will show a picture of that in a minute, but before I do, I want to take this chart down because I want to reflect a little bit on the issue of trivial amounts. All we know is that the estimate of reserves is between 3.5 and 16 billion barrels. That is what the USGS has indicated, somewhere in between. How do we relate to that? The only way we can relate to it is in comparison to what we have produced in Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay has been online 27 years. Its production was estimated to be 10 billion barrels. That was all. Today it is producing its 13 billionth barrel. It is still producing a million barrels a day. It is still the largest producing field in the United States. So if we say Prudhoe Bay was supposed to be 10 billion and it is now 13 billion, the reason it is still producing at a high rate is the new technology that did not exist 27 years ago for oil recovery. So they are getting greater utilization out of the field. Back to what this trivial amount might be, 3.5 to 16 billion. If it is in the middle, it is as big as Prudhoe Bay. That would be 10 billion barrels. How big was Prudhoe Bay? Twenty-five percent of our total crude oil production for the last 27 years. So I did a little press report today on the so-called reserves. One of my friends from the State of Oregon indicated it was only a 6-month supply. I had thought we had put that argument to rest. A 6-month supply is what some of those on the other side have indicated is what this reserve is. Well, okay, let us look at it. If this reserve is somewhere between 3.5 and 16 billion barrels, and let us say it is 10, and they say it is a 6-month supply, then what is Prudhoe Bay? It was supposed to be 10. Now it is 13. Was it a 6-month supply? No. It has been producing for 27 years, producing 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United States. This 6-month supply is only valid--and I wish my colleagues on the other side who want to debate this issue would debate it from a factual and not a misleading point of view that is promulgated by America's extreme environmental lobby. If there were no oil produced in the United States and no oil imported, why, then, it might be a 6-month supply, but that is not a feasible or conceivable argument. We have a response to the New York Times that it is a trivial amount, compared to their former statement that ``it is the most promising untapped source of oil.'' That was April 1987; 1988, ``the potential is enormous''; March 30, 1989, ``Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground.'' What the editorial board of the New York Times does obviously is their business. I talked with them about it. It was a rather interesting conversation, as a matter of fact. They said they have a new editorial editor and the former one went to California. I suppose that is a reasonable explanation. My colleagues should know what they said in March of 2000: Mr. Murkowski's stated purpose is to reduce the Nation's use of foreign oil from 56 to 50 percent partly through tax breaks. Obviously, they think tax breaks is a motivation. They further say: But mainly by opening up more tracts of land for exploration, the centerpiece of that strategy in turn is to open up the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife for exploration. This page has addressed the folly of trespassing on a wildlife preserve for what by official estimates is likely to be a modest amount of recoverable oil. Boy, isn't that the way things go. One minute they are with you and the next minute they are against you. What were they thinking in 1987 when they said it was a promising source of untapped source of oil? Or where were they when they said potential is enormous or risks are modest? Or where were they when they said Alaskan oil is too valuable to leave in the ground? Today, they say: . . . Washington's sorry failure to devise a balanced strategy to reduce America's reliance on gulf imports and give itself greater maneuvering room in the war on terrorism and other foreign policy issues as well. I ask unanimous consent the editorials of April 23, 1987, June 2, 1988, and March 30, 1989, when they supported it, as well as today's newspaper saying we are a sorry failure because we have not devised a strategy to reduce our dependence, be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the remainder of my time, and I will give it to the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I might observe, the State of Florida is in company here with a lot of other corporations. Nevertheless, I think what we have is people who are suggesting that, indeed, we have not examined sufficiently the ramifications of just what this mandate is. It has worked, in my opinion, with the States. Fourteen States have mandated renewables. It is working. Now we are coming out and saying one size fits all. In my State, if I want to have biomass, I am left out in the cold because I do not have anything but timber on public land. But it says in here that unless it is slashing, I can't even use waste from mature logs that happen to be harvested. I can't use the bark, can't use the sawdust, unless there is an amendment to this. Maybe we can get over that. There is not an awful lot of thought that has gone into this. In my opinion, it has been an effort to try to accommodate various concerns. Yes, renewables are good. We ought to really have renewables. But we are forgetting how much it costs. We are also forgetting a very important feature associated with renewables, and that is we continue to support fundamentally the funding that we have had, which has been in the area of almost $7 billion in the last 5 to 6 years in developing these renewables. But they do not come free. When we do a mandate, I really question the wisdom of it. I know it is very convenient to walk out of here and say we have all voted for renewables. That is comforting. It is good. But by the same token, the public ought to know there is no free ride here. As we look at biomass, a lot of people aren't knowledgeable. They don't really know what happens. What you do is you burn wood products. You get emissions. Emissions are a problem, and we are concerned about it. I do not see any great emphasis here for nuclear, which is clean and generates a tremendous amount of power. We have inconsistencies relative to whether we include hydro as a renewable. Certainly, in my opinion, it is. We are going to get into a debate on this, I think, over an amendment by one of our Republican Members from Maine who wants to exclude, if you will, Maine. I am going to have a hard time supporting an exemption for one State and not another. I see my friend, the Senator from New Mexico. I am going to sit down now and let Senator Domenici be recognized, if it is the preference of the junior Senator of New Mexico.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to follow up a little bit on the Senator from Arizona, Senator Kyl. He has mentioned an awful lot about cost. I think we need to address this in specifics. Let's assume a utility must purchase the credits. Let's assume we have a utility that generates no new renewables. They make that decision. Let's take the hypothetical utility. I am going to be specific. I am going to take one that we can identify and we have the information relative to the cost. Let's assume retail sales are a billion kilowatt hours. What we would have to do is to take 10 percent of the renewable portfolio standard that is in effect times 10 because we are looking for a 10-percent renewability. That means roughly 100 million kilowatt hours of renewable--that is 10 percent of a billion--times 3 cents per kilowatt hour. That is $3 million for renewable credits. That $3 million would be passed on to the ratepayers. Let's take an actual utility. I hope the delegation from Wisconsin is here because the Wisconsin Electric retail sales for the year 2000 were 3.173 billion kilowatt hours, times 10 percent renewable portfolio standard; that is, 317 million kilowatt hours, times 3 cents per kilowatt hour, which is $9.5 million for renewable credits. That is what they are going to go out and buy if, indeed, they do not develop renewables. Whether they make that decision or not, the point is it is going to cost their consumers. It is going to cost their consumers $9.5 million. What is that going to amount to, to the average consumer? What is the ratepayer going to pay in Wisconsin? He is going to have a 5- percent increase. I do not think it is fair to suggest, by any means, that somehow these renewables are going to just come on. I ask unanimous consent we have printed in the Record a letter from a group that happens to support specifically the Kyl amendment. They want to support the modified language in the Kyl amendment in order to mitigate and eliminate the harmful economic consequences for the renewable fuels portfolio mandate. I also ask unanimous consent a letter from the Florida Public Service Commission be printed in the Record.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains on our side?

Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have discussed this on our side and adhere to the proposal by the majority whip.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I can take 7 minutes.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to elaborate on my vote on H.R. 2356, the latest effort at campaign finance ``reform.'' I voted against the McCain-Feingold bill earlier this Congress, and I see little improvement in the bill we are currently debating. For this reason, I will vote against the latest attempt at campaign finance ``reform.'' I oppose this legislation on two grounds. First, the bill creates new loopholes for groups to exploit, and fails to create a level playing field in the political process. Second, the bill continues to impose unconstitutional restrictions upon every American's right to free speech and association. After 7 years of debate over this legislation, we are still left with a fundamentally flawed bill that attempts to strip away long-held protections cherished by Americans and restrict access to the marketplace of ideas. I am particularly dismayed that the proponents of this legislation have decided to create loopholes and exceptions for 501(c)(4) organizations. Some would suggest that the bill bans ``issue ads'' from corporate and nonprofit interest groups 30 days before a primary, and 60 days before a general election. Yet, the crafters of the language have allowed non-profit advocacy groups, 501(c)(4) organizations, a free shot at candidates and limited restrictions on their poisonous ``issue ads.'' As long as their advertisement is not targeted, by name, at a political candidate, they face no restriction 60 days, or even 1 day, before an election. These independent groups will be allowed to accept special interest contributions, and then fill the airwaves with issue ads--often distorting facts in their attempt to attack a candidate's record. While these ads will not name a specific candidate, so as to not be deemed ``targeted'' communications, they will continue to influence elections in the favor of special interest groups. Also, I continue to object to the proponents' efforts to extinguish constitutionally protected free speech rights. The last time Congress passed through a ``reform'' bill, in 1974, the Supreme Court eviscerated a majority of the provisions. They explicitly rejected as unconstitutional efforts to have the Government regulate ``issue advocacy,'' limit independent expenditures, and mandate limits on campaign spending. The Buckley Court wrote that: in a republic where the people [not their legislators] are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices among candidates for office is essential, for those elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a nation. Participating in government--getting your voice heard, so to speak-- is one of the most valuable and treasured rights that each citizen enjoys. This is particularly true when an individual or group wants to express their views during the election of those who govern. Citizens, candidates, groups, and national parties all should have a voice in elections and government. It is at that moment, the moment when there is a true marketplace of ideas, that democracy lives up to its meaning. Any attempt to stifle comments, criticism, or expression is an attempt to limit speech. Political speech is speech, plain and simple. Efforts to regulate political speech are the real reason we're here in the first place. Today's abuses are the natural consequence of past attempts to suppress free speech. Current campaign finance laws are complex and antiquated. We need to be enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. We need to make sure that every political contribution is accounted for, and that disclosures are immediately posted for public scrutiny. Clearly the American public has a right to know who is paying for ads, and who is attempting to influence elections. Sunshine is what the political system needs--not restrictions on basic rights. The debate over campaign finance ``reform'' is not over, and I look forward to swift review of this measure by the Federal judiciary. I am confident that the courts, again, will protect the rights of citizens and preserve the openness of our political system.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I agree, it was a good start. However, we still have a fair piece to go before we reach the end of this trail. If the Senator would recall during last week's debate I mentioned that there were a number of additional items that would need to be addressed before we completed our legislative effort on this important issue. These additional items include crafting language that sets procedures in place for allocating initial gas capacity of the pipeline and for any subsequent expansions that might be warranted based on new discoveries or additional needs in Lower 48 markets.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, during this lull in the debate of the energy bill I would like to take a moment to thank the Senator from New Mexico and his staff for all of their hard work and cooperation on the Alaska gas pipeline title of this bill.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do indeed understand what my friend from New Mexico is saying. This point is especially true when you recall that the oil and gas producers who hold the leases on the Prudhoe Bay gas have stated publicly that the project as it now stands is uneconomical. Any legislative language that adds risk or cost to the project will simply make it impossible to build the Alaska gas transportation system--and this will deny the American consumers with access to a dependable, long-term, and economic supply of domestic natural gas.