Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is fitting that we reserve time each morning to pay tribute to the troops. I, too, mourn the loss of so many of our young men and women who went over to Iraq and will not be coming home. Our hearts go out to their families and friends and for these brave men and women who put their lives on the line for our freedoms. To listen to the stories this morning, to hear the accounts of the two young men from Delaware who will not be returning home to their families, to sit in this Chamber and listen to Senators from the various States talk about those who will not be coming home, as a country we mourn for them, but we also have cause to celebrate and be joyous with those who will be coming home. I stand before you with a great sense of pride for a young man from Alaska who we just learned, quite honestly by way of a photograph that appeared on Monday, was pinned by General Franks with a Bronze Star for battle. It is one of those success stories; it is one of those tributes that is important to mention as we speak about those who have not only given their lives but those who have gone into battle and are coming back to celebrate the victories. The young man from Alaska about whom I would like to speak this morning is SGT Lucas Goddard. He has been in the military for just 3 years. He is 21 years old. He is part of the Army's 327th 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division. It was on Monday in Najaf that General Franks pinned the Bronze Star on Sergeant Goddard. Imagine yourself, Mr. President, as a parent, as we both are, your son or your daughter is overseas. They are in a conflict and you have not heard from them in several months, not knowing their situation, not knowing whether they are safe, really not knowing where they are. Your eyes are glued to the coverage of the war to glimpse anything. The parents of Sergeant Goddard received a phone call on Monday from a reporter who had seen the picture, saw that the young man had been identified as being from Alaska, and contacted Mrs. Goddard. The reporter said: So what do you think? Mrs. Goddard was speechless. She was so happy, she was so joyous, not necessarily that her son had received this incredible recognition, but that her son was alive. The headline in the hometown newspaper that day was: ``Medal and Media Images Mean Army Son is Alive in Iraq.'' Think about yourself as a parent wanting to know, waiting to know, getting a call from a reporter saying: What do you think? But the good news is that your son is alive and, on top of that, to be given a medal such as the Bronze Star. I had an opportunity last evening to speak with Sergeant Goddard's mother, Kathy Goddard. She lives in Juneau. It was heartwarming to speak with her about the pride she has for her son and the sense of giving that she has as a parent. She said to me: It's not just Lucas; it is not just Lucas who is out there. There are other young men and women from Sitka, who are in Iraq, who are serving our country, and we are concerned for all of them. Sitka is a very small community in southeast Alaska. It is an island of about 8,000 people. In that community in the grocery store, I understand from Mrs. Goddard that what they have done is put a list in the grocery store of the individuals who are serving our country right now so that people can get a sense of who is out there serving, the men and women we honor. I asked Mrs. Goddard: Can you tell us what it was that your son did to receive the Bronze Star? In the picture that we saw, there was no real recognition. It was just an acknowledgment that this young man had received the honor. She does not know. Her comment to me was: It really does not matter what he was recognized for, but whatever it is, we are exceptionally proud. We cannot wait until he gets home and he can sit around the dinner table and tell us all that he has gone through. She said he is a very humble young man and does not like to tout his accomplishments. She says he is probably going to be embarrassed over all of the hoopla that is going on right now, but there is good reason for hoopla. It is still very sketchy right now, but in referencing several of the newspaper accounts, we understand that General Franks awarded the Bronze Star for valor to two soldiers who had fought in the battle for Najaf. SGT James Ward led the team that stormed the military compound on the south side of the city, and SGT Lucas Goddard spearheaded the assault on the local airfield, taking direct enemy fire. In further newspaper accounts, as best we have been able to tell, we understand they had captured a compound of weapons while under fire by AK-47s, grenade launchers, and rocket-propelled grenades. So our brave young man from Sitka did what he was trained to do and was recognized for it. He will be going home to Sitka to celebrate with his family. I need to share a mother's intuition with the Chair and my colleagues. Mrs. Goddard said she woke up on Monday sensing that she was going to hear from her son that day. She said: You know, you just sometimes get that intuition; I just felt something. She had not heard from her son for upward of a month prior to this. That afternoon she received a phone call from a reporter asking: What do you think? We have seen the newspaper account. Well, that was not a direct contact from her son necessarily, but she said: You follow that mother's instinct. I knew that I was going to hear from him today. And that is what she heard. So to all of the men and women from Sitka, from all over my State, from all over the country, our hearts go out to you. We are extremely proud of all of you at this moment, like Sergeant Goddard, who so bravely is defending our freedom and our democracy. We must acknowledge all of our men and women for the sacrifices they are making for America's freedom, our freedom, the freedom of this Chamber, and the freedom of millions of people all over the world as we are protected by those who are serving in our Armed Forces. Sergeant Goddard is an example to all of us. It is this rock solid courage that we think about. This is what our military is all about, unfaltering bravery. So the recognition Sergeant Goddard received is one that we look to, we say thank you, and God bless. I am going to share one last communication from Sergeant Goddard. This was in an e-mail message he sent to his family some months ago. It is a testament of his good will, and I believe his honorable service to our country. In his message, he stated: I will be thinking of you all while over there. It is because of people like you that we fight the tyrants who stand in the way of freedom and peace. So to Sergeant Goddard and all of those men and women who are serving us for our freedom, we thank you. I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the hour of 12 p.m., with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as U.S.-led coalition forces act to remove Saddam Hussein from power, I would like to speak about another conflict in the Middle East that is, unfortunately, all too often in the news for the wrong reasons. During the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, U.S. forces seized two key airfields, known as H2 and H3, in Western Iraq. It was from these airfields that 39 Scud missiles were launched against Israel during the first Gulf War in 1991, prompting chaos and panic. While Israel was fortunate that the Scud strikes were ineffective, many more people died from heart failure blamed on war-related stress--68--than from the missile strikes themselves--2. It was the intent of Saddam Hussein to prompt backlash by Arab nations against the U.S.-led coalition should Israel respond with military force to the Scud attacks. That concern remains valid today. Much of the current opposition in the Muslim community to military action against Saddam Hussein stems from their desire to see an end to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States policy toward Israel has been roundly criticized by some as lopsided in its support. There is no question that the United States provides Israel with more foreign assistance than any other nation--and deservedly so. The United States played a critical role in the establishment of Israel in 1948. Our two nations are bound closely by historic and cultural ties as well as by mutual interests. As a key ally, and the only democracy in the Middle East, she deserves our support. This does not mean, however, that the United States and Palestinians cannot build a similarly positive relationship. On March 14, President Bush reiterated his support for the creation of a peaceful Palestinian State. I agree, and share the President's vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. I welcome the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as Prime Minister and applaud the Palestinian Authority's decision to rebuff Yasir Arafat's attempts to retain power over the Cabinet. I am not convinced, however, that these actions alone are enough to warrant the United States' full endorsement. The Palestinian Authority must crack down on those terrorist organizations that seek to derail any prospects for peace in the Middle East. Groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. I pose this simple test. If the Israeli military were to withdraw its forces to pre-1967 boundaries, what is the likelihood that Palestinian terrorist organizations would end their suicide attacks against innocent Israelis? Likewise, if attacks by Palestinian terrorists were to end, what is the likelihood that Israeli troops would end their excursions into Palestinian held land? At present, I would suggest the latter is a much more likely scenario. Israel has every right to defend herself against these terrorist attacks--and the United States should not endorse efforts that would undermine Israel's national security. There are those who suggest that U.N. peacekeepers should be sent in, or that the Middle East ``quartet''--the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations--should present a roadmap for peace. The United States should not--must not--be drawn into endorsing any ``roadmap'' that does not require the dismantling of the operational capabilities and financial support of terrorist groups within a Palestinian state. When Palestinian leaders refuse to crack down on terrorist organizations, Israel has every right to take the necessary measures to protect its national security. Certainly, there is a role for the international community to play in the process. To provide assurances to both sides that their interests will not be steamrolled. But, for true peace to be achieved, it is inherent that Israel and the Palestinian people reach a peace accord between themselves, without outside influence. An agreement dictated and enforced by a third party will not result in long lasting peace. History has shown that peace cannot be achieved with Yasir Arafat in charge of the Palestinian Authority. At the Camp David summit in July 2000, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Chairman Arafat a remarkable array of concessions. Unfortunately, Arafat was unable to muster the political courage to accept these concessions--because to accept would mean the end of his reign; the end of his power over the Palestinian people. Yasir Arafat was not willing to make that sacrifice for peace in the Middle East. We have seen this type of behavior from Arafat in the past. There is no indication that it will change in the future. But now, the Palestinian Authority has moved past Yasir Arafat. The position of Prime Minister has been created. A Prime Minister has been appointed. The power to appoint a cabinet is his alone. The potential is there for truly significant reform. This is encouraging. But it is only a beginning. Now, they must recognize that terror and violence do not work. That arrested extremists must remain in jail. That denouncing suicide attacks entails more that just words. Certainly, Israel must do its part. The establishment of settlements in the territories seized in the 1967 war must be stopped. Retaliatory violence against innocent Palestinians must be curtailed. I was pleased to read that on March 24, Israeli troops dismantled an illegal Jewish settlement near Hebron. This crackdown on settlements must continue. There is a dual responsibility here. Israeli and Palestinian authorities must prevent extremists on both sides from setting and driving the agenda. The continued acts of violence and aggression only demonstrate that some groups in the region will always oppose a peace agreement. These groups must be placed on the sidelines. They must be delegitimized. Peace is possible. But it takes real effort by both sides to make it happen. We have seen significant concessions from Israel in the past. Yasir Arafat was unwilling to reciprocate. I am hopeful that Prime Minister Abbas proves more amenable.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 112, a resolution that requests the President of the United States to designate April 11, 2003 as ``National Youth Service Day,'' acknowledges the remarkable community service efforts of youth today, and encourages all people to recognize and support the significance of these contributions. NYSD is a public awareness and education campaign that highlights the extraordinary contributions that young people make to their communities throughout the year. On this day, youth from across the United States and the world will carry out community service projects in areas ranging from hunger to literacy to the environment. NYSD is the largest service event in the world with over three million participants. NYSD brings a diverse group of local, regional, and national partners together to support and promote youth service. As a mother of two young sons, I understand the importance of recognizing and supporting the positive contributions that youth make to our country and the world each and every day. It is imperative to keep young people active and motivated, and instilled with a sense of community responsibility. Volunteer work gives youth an outlet to gain this responsibility, and to learn valuable skills that are essential to personal and academic achievement. I thank my colleagues--Senators Akaka, Baucus, Biden, Brownback, Bunning, Campbell, Clinton, Cochran, Collins, DeWine, Domenici, Durbin, Johnson, Kennedy, Landrieu, Lugar, Mikulski, Murray, and Stevens--for co-sponsoring this worthwhile legislation, which will ensure that youth across the country and the world know that all of their hard work is greatly appreciated.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on vote No. 118 I am recorded as voting aye on amendment No. 481. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be recorded as nay. This change will not affect the outcome of the vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, the current budget resolution assumes the growth package will immediately raise the $600 child tax credit to $1,000. My amendment is going to require that the growth package extend that $1,000 child credit until the year 2013. The child credit is currently $600, and it is scheduled to go up to $1,000 in 2010. The problem we have with this, however, is that in the year 2011, you are going to have a child credit of $1,000. But the following year, that is going to drop in half to $500. In other words, families with two children will face a $1,000 tax increase in the year 2011. A family of three is going to face a tax increase of $1,500. I don't think any of us would suggest that is fair. This is to help the families, particularly in times when we have some economic difficulties. This is an amendment that will help America's families. I urge Members' support.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as our Nation is engaged in confrontation with Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi-regime, I join with my colleagues in offering my gratitude and support for our troops, both here and overseas. None of us desire the use of force. Yet, as history has repeatedly taught us, the failure to confront a menacing tyranny today can lead to far greater devastation tomorrow. Had British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stood fast against Nazi Germany's 1938 demand to dismember Czechoslovakia in exchange for ``peace in our time,'' the lives of 50 million people could have been saved. I salute the brave men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who are willing to place their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. My thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families who remain behind, praying their loves ones not be harmed. The dangers facing our troops are many. Will the Iraqi army quickly surrender? Will chemical and biological weapons be used? How long will this military campaign take? In addition, our service members must contend with the scorching heat of the desert; the blinding conditions of sand storms; and the logistical nightmares of crossing the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. We can feel better knowing our troops are prepared for all contingencies and have been trained to meet whatever challenges Saddam and his regime may throw their way. Our troops hail from all fifty States; our territories and insular possessions. Every Member of Congress is impacted. During the first Gulf War in 1991, one Alaskan was killed: Sergeant David Douthit, a 24-year-old from Soldotna. Alaskans are currently participating in Northern and Southern Watch, enforcing the no-fly zones in Iraq. They are in Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. They are in South Korea participating in the annual Foal Eagle military exercises. Unit 210 of the Kulis Air National Guard in Alaska has been activated and is awaiting deployment to the Middle East as part of an elite rescue squad. This is a group of everyday Americans--bankers, economists, and teachers--who are serving their Nation at a time of war. May no harm come to them. There is on question that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He has killed thousands of his own people. He has used chemical weapons against the Kurdish population. He imprisons and tortures political opponents and subjects Iraqi citizens to beatings, starvation, mutilation and rape. As the President put it when declaring the 4-hour deadline, the day of liberation for the Iraqi people is near. American troops are in Iraq to secure our Nation from the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. He repeatedly failed to disarm and chose to ignore his obligations to the international community. The time has come for him to leave. An enormous burden is now placed on the shoulders of our Armed Forces. Together, with allies from over 40 member nations who are supporting this effort, we seek to eliminate the weapons and facilities that Saddam should have destroyed 12 years ago. Now, we will finally ensure that the United States and our allies do not face the threat of chemical, biological or nuclear attack from those who would seek to harm us. Like so many who came before them, these brave men and women are placing their lives on the line to secure our freedom and protect our ideals and liberties. They have my undying thanks and support.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Ten minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Madam President, the discussion about ANWR is more than just pictures. It is more than statistics, numbers, and barrels of oil that might be recoverable. ANWR is about real people, real jobs, and real opportunities, and that is what we need to be focusing on. We do not need to get caught up in the hype of the pretty pictures. I will be the first to tell you that my State is absolutely drop-dead gorgeous, and I want to keep it that way. I would not be supporting anything, and I would not be standing on the floor of the Senate suggesting that we should do anything to despoil that. I want to talk briefly today about three points and what ANWR means to us in Alaska. It is jobs, it is protection of the environment, and it is also about economic security--three commonsense, basic issues. Let me talk quickly about the environment because it is these attacks that I think first and foremost have kept ANWR from being developed for the past 20-some years, all the concern of the development of oil and gas reserves on the North Slope, on the Coastal Plain. It was intended and identified as early as 1960 by President Eisenhower that this area had great potential for oil exploration and drilling and should be utilized as such. We do care for the environment. We have shown that through construction of our 800-mile Trans-Alaska pipeline that carries the oil safely, bisecting the State from top to bottom. We have done a darn good job, and the scientific studies and reports, including the National Academy of Sciences' report that came out 2 weeks ago, demonstrate that. We do a good job. We care for our environment in Alaska. The environment and development are not mutually exclusive terms. We have demonstrated time and again that they are not mutually exclusive. For those who will take the time to visit our oilfields up North, I think they will be amazed at the technology, the innovation we utilize when it comes to the extraction of our natural resources. The good Senator from New Mexico stood in this Chamber earlier and talked about the directional drilling and the technique that is now available to develop our oil. I think he used the number 4 miles; that we can snake this oil well down across a 4-mile area of terrain. He used the analogy of a child with a straw and a milkshake and that straw could go 4 miles. That is a pretty vivid image. Actually, the good chairman of the Energy Committee is incorrect; we can actually go 6 miles. The technology has come so far in the 30 years since we have been drilling on the North Slope. We talk about the footprint. The footprint has been described in so many ways. You can fit six of the oil development areas in the size of Dulles Airport. It is the size of the Pinehurst golf course. The visuals are there, but what we need to impress upon people, what we have to impress upon people is that the footprint is practically negligible in the context of the whole Coastal Plain and certainly in the context of the whole of ANWR and even more certainly in the context of the entire scope of our State. What we are talking about, first of all, is very small. But even if it is small, we still need to do it responsibly, and we do that through the technology. The State of Alaska is the first to make sure the environmental standards are met and the permitting requirements are met. Nobody wants to rape, spoil, or ruin the land. Madam President, I am third generation Alaskan. I am the first person serving in Congress for the State of Alaska who was actually born in the State. I was born in the territory. I am the last person to suggest we should do anything that would spoil our environment, my environment, the environment in which I choose to raise my family. My boys, my husband, and I live for fishing, hunting, camping, and backpacking. This is the part of Alaska we want to preserve. So let us do it right. We know how to do it right. I will talk a bit about the jobs. We have talked about jobs repeatedly on this floor. Last night, we demonstrated through the testimony and the charts that we are talking about some 575,000 jobs across the country. We need to remember that when I talk about jobs, I do not want people to think that Alaska is interested in opening up ANWR just because it means jobs and opportunity for my constituents, for the people in my State. It does. It means that, and it means more. It means roads, hospitals, schools, and facilities. It enables people in my State to live, but it also means jobs across America. As I said, this means 575,000 jobs across the country. If we look at the numbers, they are all over the board: The State of New Jersey, 178,000 jobs; the State of Pennsylvania, 27,000; the State of Ohio, 25,000; the State of Kentucky, 10,000; the State of Texas, 47,000; the State of California, 63,000 jobs. We are talking about real jobs for real Americans across the country. We are considering the economic stimulus package that the President has put forth. There is no better economic stimulus than jobs and job opportunity. We can provide that for America through ANWR, and they are good-paying jobs. I made the point last night--and it is compelling--that the job opportunities right now for Alaska are approximately 11,000 jobs within the petroleum industry. If we were to accept this amendment, if we were to strip ANWR from the budget resolution, what these other States would be saying is that it is OK for us to have petroleum-based jobs in our States but, Alaska, we do not want you to have any more. We are cutting you off. In other words, Massachusetts could keep its 20,000 petroleum- based jobs, New Jersey could keep its 27,000 petroleum industry jobs, and New York could keep its 37,000 petroleum industry jobs, while Alaskans should look for alternatives. The impression I get as an Alaskan, looking from the inside out, is that the lower 48 would just as soon lock us up, not allow us to have good-paying jobs that will feed our families and allow us to live in the State we want to live. But, no, the jobs we should have are jobs such as carrying the bags for the tourists who come to our State. Yes, we want tourism but we also want real jobs, and these petroleum-based jobs are jobs that are real for Alaskans. It is one thing if the residents of the State of Alaska said we do not want this and Congress was trying to shove it down their throats, but Alaskans have said yes. We have said we will accept responsible oil development and production in our backyard. We will take it, and we will do it responsibly. We promise we will be responsible. This gets to my last point, which is economic security and basically plain old common sense. There is kind of an 800-pound gorilla sitting in the Chamber now. We are literally at the brink of war. We do not know what is going to happen in Iraq. We do not know if Saddam Hussein is going to torch the oil fields. We have no idea. What we do know is that in the past several months, we have increased our imported oil from Iraq. We have doubled our imports from Iraq in the past couple of months. We have sent billions of dollars to Iraq. I am not quite sure how the paper trail goes, but I do not think it is too farfetched to assume that we send billions of dollars to Iraq to Saddam Hussein, who in turn sells us the oil that we place in our aircraft or our air carriers and we send our men and our women over to defend no-fly zones, to put them in harm's way, when we could be producing domestically. If that does not keep us awake at night, I do not know what will. It does not make sense at this point in time.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it has been suggested in the past few minutes and last evening that instead of opening ANWR, we need to look to conservation; we need to discuss CAFE standards; we need to look to alternative fuels. We need to keep ANWR in context. This is not an either/or debate. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. We have to have increased conservation efforts, of course. That is reasonable. But as the Senator from New Mexico has stated, we will never be entirely free in our reliance on oil, on petroleum products. When you look at what we get from petroleum products, it is not just the gasoline that goes in our vehicles. That is not the only issue. We use it in our plastics. We use it for Band-Aids, for perfume, for so many things that you can't even imagine. We will continue to need gas. We will continue to need oil. These are necessary for us as a society. To suggest that we are going to conserve our way out of reliance on petroleum is not reasonable. It is not feasible. We have to accept both. We need the domestic energy sources that only ANWR can provide to us. We have heard it repeated time and time again today and yesterday and in the years throughout the debate, this is where the energy reserves are. We can't deny that. We can't be put off or led astray by looking at nice pictures and thinking that somehow or other in order to preserve this area, we have to give up development.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I have placed on each Member's desk a copy of Review & Outlook from the Wall Street Journal that ran this morning. I urge each Member to review that, because it does speak exactly to the issue I addressed. I conclude by reminding members of some very pertinent facts. ANWR has more oil in it than the State of Texas. These are not made-up facts. This is Department of Interior, USGS. This is not insignificant quantities we are dealing with.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for an additional minute.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and the preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record as if read, without intervening action or debate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my statement count against the opposition's time to the amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is actually quite fortuitous I am standing before you tonight. I have not spoken on the floor but once since I have been here in my new role as the junior Senator from Alaska. But I stand before you tonight to do the one thing I have been asked by the residents, the people of Alaska to do, and that is to work for jobs, for a sustainable economy for my State and for my constituents. So to stand tonight to talk about ANWR and what ANWR means not only to my State but to all of America is, as I say, significant because ANWR is about jobs, it is about the economy, it is about economic security, domestic energy production. It is also about Native rights in my home State, and it is about common sense. I have been listening very closely to the comments that have been made tonight, some by my fellow colleague from Alaska, quite passionately arguing the facts. We have seen some beautiful pictures, and we have seen some numbers thrown around. I think it is so important that we put into perspective what ANWR really is, what it means. To do that, we have to go back a bit in history. We have to look to the history of ANWR. We have known about ANWR's oil potential since the early 1900s. It was in 1913, 1914 that the U.S. Geological Survey found strong indications of oil. So we have known that oil reserves, strong oil reserves, are on the North Slope. This area now known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was originally created in 1960 by Executive order under the Eisenhower administration. This Executive order has been pointed to a couple times tonight. It seems that it has been construed that it was recognized by this order that somehow ANWR, the Coastal Plain, should be reserved as some wilderness or should be put off limits. It is important to go back to the language of that Executive order so we understand clearly what President Eisenhower recognized in 1960. The order states: For the purposes of preserving the wildlife, the wilderness, and the recreational values described in northeastern Alaska containing approximately 8.9 million acres, is hereby subject to valid existing withdrawals, withdrawn from all forms of appropriations under the public land laws, including mining, but not the mineral leasing laws. This is where people are failing to read the rest of that order: ``but not the mineral leasing laws.'' In 1960, through Executive order, was the first time it was recognized that the potential for mineral and oil was significant on the Coastal Plain. I have a chart that details exactly what is in the refuge. The Coastal Plain, which is 1.5 million acres, was created in 1980 under ANILCA. The wilderness area in yellow was also set out in ANILCA. When the initial refuge was set up, it was this portion, additional refuge land, which is not wilderness, which was created under section 303 of ANILCA. It added this section. When we talk about ANWR, the refuge, and the wilderness and the 1002 area, it is important to keep in mind that we are talking about different animals, if you will. The Coastal Plain, the 1002 area, is separate and distinct from the wilderness area that has been created and separate from that refuge. In 1959, Alaska had become a State with certain rights guaranteed to it under the Statehood Act. Within that act was a recognition by President Eisenhower--again through the Executive order--that the North Slope had vast oil and gas potential and that it should remain available at all times for domestic use. There was a recognition in 1960 that something was different about the Coastal Plain--a Federal recognition that the oil and gas potential along the plain is too important to lock it up. Go forward 13 years when Congress authorized through the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Authorization Act the construction of the Trans-Alaska pipeline. This pipeline was to carry up to 2.1 million barrels of oil from the North Slope to the tidewater in Valdez for export to the lower 48. This was the next recognition, if you will, of the potential for reserves in the North Slope. Our pipeline spans 800 miles from the north of the State all the way down to the southern terminus in Valdez. It goes through some of the most rugged and beautiful country one is ever going to see, and this pipeline carries the oil safely and efficiently without harm to the environment or the wildlife. It survived the biggest earthquakes the designers could have foreseen. We had a 7.1 earthquake in November. It was a construction marvel that pipeline worked the way the designers had envisioned it would. Our pipeline is an amazing wonder of American ingenuity and spirit. This pipeline has been around for three decades now, and it has been doing a good job. As Senator Stevens pointed out earlier this evening, our pipeline is half full. We need additional oil deposits to maintain operations. I have said this is an 800-mile pipeline, but again I think it helps to put things in perspective if one is not from the State of Alaska. This pipeline covers a span of country equal to the distance between Duluth, MN, and New Orleans, LA. To date, it has carried over 14 billion barrels of Alaska oil to the lower 48--day in, day out. This pipeline was constructed in 1973. We have been transporting oil in it ever since. In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act, which is commonly known as ANILCA. This bill was a culmination of 5 years' worth of legislative negotiations spanning three separate Congresses. There was an agreement reached, which Senator Stevens mentioned earlier, between Senator Scoop Jackson of Washington and Senator Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, two Democrats and two protectors of the environment. The bill included language which was agreed to by Alaska to ensure access to the Coastal Plain for oil and gas exploration. This is where we get the phrase or why we keep referring to this parcel as the 1002, because it came from section 1002 of ANILCA. It specifically set forth the requirements for exploration and development of oil and gas reserves in this small portion of ANWR, consistent with the protections for wildlife. With ANILCA, we doubled the size of President Eisenhower's Arctic National Wildlife Range. This was the range initially. We doubled the size by adding the refuge and changed the name to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Through ANILCA, we put half of the land in refuge, 8 million in wilderness and 1.5 million reserved as an energy bank for the United States. Again, I point out, it is important to mention that the 1002 area is technically not part of the refuge. It lies within the outer boundaries of the refuge, but it is technically not part of it. It is essentially an area in legal limbo waiting for Congress to fulfill the statutory requirements that were set out in section 1002 of ANILCA, and to fulfill the promises that were made to Alaska on statehood. It is not really in the refuge, but it is definitely not a part of the wilderness, and it is not part of the wilderness by definition or in just the everyday sense of the word. If one looks up ``wilderness'' in Webster's, it is defined as an unsettled and uncultivated region. The Coastal Plain does not meet this definition of wilderness, because for years we have had military installations that have been involved in monitoring Soviet and cross polar activity. We have a community. We have the village of Kaktovik which sits right within the 1002 area. These people call the area home. They have their homes there. They have a school there. They have community centers there. They have hospitals. They have a community. This is not a wilderness. Some of the pictures we have seen lead one to believe there is nothing up there, but when you take your camera, you can look in whatever direction you want to prove your point. So I think we need to keep in mind, let's envision what we have up there. We have made offers to people. If they have not seen ANWR, come up and see what we are talking about. See what the Coastal Plain is. See what drilling looks like in Alaska. At the outset, I mentioned this also had to do with Native rights issues. Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, some Alaska Natives were given the right to select lands on the North Slope. A group of Alaska Natives from the North Slope region selected 92,000 acres within the boundaries of the 1002 area specifically for its oil and gas potential. Those Natives who have selected those lands are denied any opportunity to develop. Through the 1971 act of Congress, they were given the right to select those lands. They selected them, but there is nothing further they can do with them. They are being denied the right to do with the land what they feel should be done. If they need jobs and opportunities, we are denying them that opportunity. This refusal to allow the Natives to use their land is another example of the hand of Government falling upon Natives and Indians in America, because Government knows how to do it best. So that is kind of our preliminary history lesson about ANWR. Let's get to some of the facts, though, that have been mentioned this evening. We are importing nearly 11 million barrels of oil every day from other countries. Most of them are from countries that are not so very friendly or not so very stable. Alaska is producing 1 million barrels of oil per day, when the pipeline can carry twice that amount. We are wasting this national asset. We have a pipeline that is half full. Prior to the last gulf war, Alaska produced nearly 2.1 million barrels of oil per day, all of it destined for West Coast ports in the lower 48. Now, rather than move to open a small portion of the Coastal Plain to responsible oil and natural gas development, our opponents are suggesting we can basically conserve our way out of the reduced dependency in an economically responsible manner. I will be the first to tell my colleagues we must work on our conservation efforts, but we must be realistic about what it is we can and cannot do. I have heard those who state that ANWR is a false choice when compared with higher CAFE standards, that that is the way we need to go. But desiring tougher standards at the expense of more domestic production is the real false choice. It is a false choice because we have to do both. We have to pursue conservation, but we have to pursue increased domestic production if we are going to get our energy situation back on track. To suggest we do not do any more, that we cut it off, that there is no need for any more oil, that we are going to go to this wonderful hydrogen-based society and we are all going to be able to power our vehicles on something other than gasoline, it is not today, it is not tomorrow, it is probably not 10 years. Having said that, should we not work toward it? Sure, that is fine, but let's keep in mind that we use gasoline for more than powering our vehicles. We use gasoline in a whole host of ways. I was talking to a group of students this morning. They said, gasoline is used for cars, and if we change the way our vehicles are fueled, surely we will not need to rely on gasoline. But it is used for home fuel oil, jet fuel, petrochemicals, asphalt, kerosene, lubricants, maritime fuel, other products. If we look at this chart, of the gasoline that we consume, one barrel of oil makes 44.2 gallons of economic essentials. So 44 percent of a barrel of oil is going into the gasoline component. The remainder, 56 percent, is going into all of these other things. So the kids wanted to know, what are all of these other things? They are plastics, CDs, crayons, contact lenses, panty hose, photographs, roofing material, dentures, shaving cream, perfumes, umbrellas, golf balls, aspirin, bandages, deodorant, tents, footballs. To suggest we need to cut back on oil because we do not want to have a society that is dependent on oil for our vehicles is one thing. We can look to alternatives for how we might power our vehicles. But we have to recognize we are oil-dependent: 56 percent, 58 percent of the oil we consume in the United States is imported oil. That is not a good place to be, particularly when we can do better domestically. We want to be able to do that. Alaska has been a proud supplier of 20 percent of this country's oil production for the past 25 years. We produce this oil in the harshest environment imaginable. We do it better and we do it safer and we do it in a more environmentally sound and scientific manner than anywhere on Earth. Every spill on the North Slope is reported. Every drop. If a can of soda pop is dropped, it is reported. We are conscious. We know what is going on. We are being careful and cautious. The National Academy of Sciences 2 weeks ago released a report on the cumulative impact of North Slope oil development. What did they find about oil spills on the North Slope? No major oil spills had occurred. There was no cumulative effect. The discussion about how to drill and where to drill is moot because we are in a situation where we have essentially a professional environmental community that says no development at all anywhere. They are using ANWR as their rallying cry. What they are doing by stopping development in ANWR and by saying you cannot go there, they are shutting down not only oil development but human progress. There is a community in Kaktovik, a community on the North Slope in Barrow, existing because of oil. Their school, their hospital, their community exists because they have jobs and a resource base. That is human progress that most would see as positive. There was an interesting article in the Washington Post a few days back. Phillip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, summed up what today's modern professional environmental movement is about, talking about drilling in ANWR and talking about the technology and whether cumulative impact had been good or bad. He noted, even if new technology has lessened the environment damage, it is not the drilling itself but the other activities, such as road building, housing for workers, the infrastructure needed to support them, that cause damage. If you think that through, if it is the school, if it is the house, if it is the road that causes the damage, it is not necessarily the drilling. They are doing the drilling fine. The road is that way or the house is blocking the wind and causing snow to drift and that will accumulate and then melt and puddle in the spring; that is a negative change. We are going to have all kinds of problems. By Mr. Clapp's standard, the elementary school in Fayetteville, AR, causes a negative impact. We have to be realistic. We deal with this not-in-my-backyard syndrome and it seems this NIMBY is now morphing into BANANA, build almost nothing anywhere near anyone. If you carry it further to a little more ludicrous level, you have the term NOPE: not On planet Earth. We in Alaska are starting to feel cut off from the rest of the world, that the rest of the world or the rest of the country would just as soon lock us up and say nothing, nada, zip, you cannot do anything. You are not responsible enough to carry on development because we are concerned about the environment. Again, I challenge Members to come up, see the oil development, how we bring oil out of the ground safely every single day and deliver it to the rest of the lower 48. We do a good job. Give us credit. We had a bit of an example about the technology used on the North Slope now. The comment was made earlier when we first began producing in Prudhoe Bay, the size of the oil fields, the pads, the footprint was bigger, but the technology in the past 30 years has brought us to a remarkable place where we can drill, and for all intents and purposes you do not know we are there. We have a picture that shows when the drill is complete there is a stump put in the ground. That is what you look at at the end. You do not have a huge infrastructure. I had a meeting this afternoon with an independent oil company working in Alaska, explaining to us some incredible new technology that allows for construction of modules on the tundra, elevated so the tundra is not affected by any warmth or heat coming off the building. These modules are supported on beams not made from ice but inserted in an ice sleeve so when drilling is complete, when the project is complete, they melt the ice, pick everything up, and they are out of there. The technology we have today is so remarkable, so incredible, we can go in, we can do the job, and we can do it in a manner that does not disturb the environment. The point was made earlier about the size we are talking about. The maps of Alaska do not do justice to the size or the expanse. The development of the Coastal Plain would use an area of land smaller than the Little Rock airport. It was mentioned that in the area of drilling we are looking to do in the 1002 area, six of them would fit within Dulles Airport. Conceptualize this: An area 290 times smaller than Ted Turner's private ranch in New Mexico. I have not been there, but I can visualize it. Or an area the size of George Washington's Mount Vernon when he first inherited the property in 1761. This is what we are talking about, a tiny sliver on the Arctic Coastal Plain. Yes, we did see lovely pictures taken during the summer when the tundra is abloom. Those flowers do exist, although I don't know, I have seen the purple flowers. But most of the time it looks like the moon. It is white, it is deserted. Most days you cannot tell the sky from the land. This is the world that we are talking about. It is frozen 9 months out of the year. It is windswept. It is bitter cold. It is not hospitable country. Yet small groups of Alaskan Eskimos have chosen to call this home and want to be able to stay there, have decent jobs there. This is what we are talking about when we talk about ANWR. I was going on about the size of ANWR. It was pointed out to me that the amount of land we need is the same size as the world famous Pinehurst Golf Resort in North Carolina, home to eight world-class golf courses. In fact, a new golf course opens every day in the U.S., which means that the amount of land that we need to produce billions of barrels of oil for the American consumer is gobbled up in just 8 days by golf courses nationwide. It seems kind of silly to be comparing ANWR and the incredible contribution you are going to be getting from ANWR and its resources to a golf course, but I think it helps to put it in perspective. First, think about the size we are talking about and think about our land use. This is not an area you would want to go and have a round of golf. Also tonight there has been discussion about the wildlife up in the 1002 area. Since Alaska oil production began nearly three decades ago, the caribou herds have increased an average of 450 percent; duck, geese, and other migratory birds are flourishing. As has been mentioned, there are more caribou in Alaska than there are people. The caribou are doing fine. They hope it is not going to be another bad bug year, but the caribou are thriving. When we get right down to what ANWR is about to the Alaskan people, it is about economic opportunity; it is about real jobs for them. But I don't stand here and try to suggest that only my State is going to benefit, that the only reason we should open ANWR is so people in the State of Alaska can have jobs. This is jobs for the Nation. This is jobs for America. By opening the Coastal Plain as intended by President Eisenhower, we would create hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide, employ thousands of union and nonunion members in many States, and produce $2.1 billion in the first few years alone for the Federal Treasury. Going back to the jobs I mentioned, it is not just Alaska. There was a study done. It was just completed in Alaska by probably the most reputable analyst in the State, the McDowell Group. They did an assessment of ANWR-developed-related employment throughout the United States. They base their numbers on $36-a-barrel oil. But given that price range throughout the 50 States, it is estimated that a total of 575,000 jobs would be created across the country. We are talking today, tomorrow, and the following day about the President's economic stimulus plan, the economic growth plan. I am here to tell you, if we want economic growth, if we want economic stimulus, we need jobs. And 575,000 jobs across the country is nothing to shake a stick at. It is not just jobs on the west coast. Just pick a number here. Pennsylvania: 27,000 jobs; Tennessee--the good Senator was here speaking earlier: 11,000 jobs are estimated to be available in Tennessee. The sponsor of this amendment, from California--California will see 63,000 jobs. The Senator from Washington was here earlier: 10,000 jobs in Washington. You can go down the list. There is no State that somehow or other does not stand to gain if we are able to open ANWR. You say, how are we really getting 10,000 jobs in Washington or 63,000 jobs in California? We are going to need the pipes, the valves, the drill bits, the trucks--everything else that goes along with drilling and opening a new field and connecting these pipes. So these are real. It is not an accident that this is included in this budget resolution. It is part of the President's priority and agenda because this is about jobs. To many of the unions across the country, they have truly identified this as a jobs issue and are working very hard on this issue. To many of the families who are struggling, this is a family issue. We talk about the caribou and we are concerned about the caribou and we care for the wildlife. But the fact is, you have to have money to buy your kids shoes and put food on the table, and only the jobs can provide that. The other thing about the jobs that will come, they will be real jobs with real wages for people in my State. To hear the opponents of ANWR talk, you would think that they want Alaska to be locked up and to be just this big, beautiful tourist attraction so they can come and visit. That is nice. We want to have visitors to our State. We want people to come up and see Prudhoe Bay. We want them to come and see the good job that we do. But this thought process implies that they want California or Massachusetts or New York or other States to produce tangible items for our economy. Alaskan residents, my constituents, the jobs they will get are carrying bags for these people when they come to visit as a tourist. Those are not the kinds of jobs that I want for my constituents. That is not the kinds of jobs that Alaskans want. We want real jobs. We want the ability to create real jobs. It is demeaning and it is unfair to say that Massachusetts can keep its 20,000 petroleum-based jobs; that New Jersey can keep its 27,000 petroleum-industry jobs; and New York can keep its 36,000 petroleum- industry jobs, while Alaska supposedly looks to other alternatives. Why is it OK for everybody else to do it, and yet in Alaska for some reason we are not responsible, we can't handle it, we don't do it right, we need to lock it up and preserve it because it is the last Serengeti? By opening ANWR, we are trying to save the 11,000 petroleum-industry jobs that we have in Alaska. We want to provide other States with similar opportunities. When it comes to resource development in Alaska, we are not looking to spoil the environment. We want the environmental safeguards. We want to make sure we do it right. We want to make sure that we, those of us who choose to live there, are going to continue to want to stay there because it is the quality of life that attracts us. We don't want to circumvent any environmental requirements or processes. We want to use the most safe and most clean and most expensive technology available to get this oil out of the ground. I have lived my whole life in Alaska. I was born there. I am third generation. In fact I am the first person to represent Alaska in the Congress who was actually born in the State. I was actually born during territorial days. I have no desire to see the environment of my State ruined. My husband came to Alaska because he was attracted by the beauty of the State, by the fishing, by the wildlife. My husband and I are raising two sons who live for hunting and fishing and camping. This is why we are in Alaska. I would be the last person to suggest that we should do anything to ruin our environment. But I have seen what we can do. I know we can do it right. And we can balance the development with the environment. They are not contradictory terms. It is difficult to stand here as a new Senator and go over these arguments, but I cannot imagine what it must be like to stand in the senior Senator's shoes, and having had this argument and this discussion and this debate about opening ANWR for the past 20, 25 years, and to hear the same concerns and the same argument and the same discussion, and still our oil is locked up. It is a long time to be talking about this. It is a long time. If we had been successful--actually, they were successful in 1995, when ANWR passed the Congress, but President Clinton vetoed that ANWR legislation in 1995. If he had not vetoed that, the oil from ANWR would soon be on its way down the existing Alaska oil pipeline in time for who knows what lies ahead. I have mentioned we have a lot to look forward to in the years ahead, and it is not necessarily an oil-based economy. We have mentioned that the President's initiative, the hydrogen initiative to power our cars, is out there. We are looking forward to that. But we have also talked about the need to continue with our oil reserves for all those other resources and products that we have out there. I have not touched on the desire, the concern, the request from Alaskans. Alaskans are looking at ANWR and saying: Well, wait a minute. Why is it so difficult? If we are willing to accept the development in our State, why can't we move forward with this? We listen very well and very closely to the arguments and concerns in other locales. In the Midwest, right now, they are saying: No, don't drill in the Great Lakes. We don't want to do that. And I would say: If you don't want drilling in the Great Lakes, and you are the people who live there, and you say, no, we don't want it in our area, then, no, there is no need to go there. But in Alaska, we have said: We accept it. We want it. We are here to help. Yet we are being turned down. We are being refused. We are being blocked by outside interests that seem to think they know better than Alaskans about what we need to do. In Alaska, we do not have this NIMBY syndrome. We are saying: Put it in our backyard. We will accept it. We will be responsible stewards for this environment and for this resource. Let us help you. We respect and defer to the opinions of those in other parts of the country who do not want drilling near them. All that we ask is that same deference be afforded to us. I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to increase our use of renewable fuel sources. We have had some good discussions with several Senators about biodiesel, ethanol. But the Senators from those States also need to recognize that in order to grow the crops necessary to make these renewable fuels, they are going to need fertilizers. Fertilizers come from natural gas. I have been talking, for most of the evening, about oil. But we need to also keep in mind that ANWR has vast deposits of natural gas, as much as 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that could be used to mitigate the unusually high natural gas prices we are seeing. Yesterday we received a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation. In it the Farm Bureau requests support of environmentally sound energy development in ANWR and supports its inclusion in the Senate budget resolution. They recognize it is critical, it is important, for the farmers of America. If they are going to get the fertilizer they need, they are going to need that natural gas from somewhere. They are projecting ahead; they are anticipating that demand, and asking that we assist with the supply. And ANWR can assist with the supply. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the American Farm Bureau be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I was commenting a moment ago about the desire or the willingness of Alaskans to take on ANWR development, that we are receptive to it. Earlier, on the floor this evening, the good Senator from California mentioned, and I believe had printed in the Record, a statement of opposition to drilling from a tribal entity. I have not seen that. I am not certain from where it came. But I would like to also have in the Record that the Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the federation of all the Natives in the State of Alaska, has passed a resolution in support of the opening of ANWR and urging the Congress ``to adopt legislation to open the Coastal Plain area of ANWR to an environmentally responsible program of oil and gas leasing and development.'' I ask unanimous consent that this resolution be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is, obviously, an issue that generates a lot of passion. We have seen that on the floor this evening. It has generated a lot of facts and figures. I would caution people to look critically at the facts. Make sure they add up. We have heard discussion from a couple of different individuals tonight about the amount of oil that is out there. And is it a 6-month supply? And, if so, we surely should not open up ANWR. As was pointed out by my fellow Senator from Alaska, that is assuming there is no other source produced domestically or used domestically. It is an overt effort to skew the facts to one side's advantage. In a debate such as this, it is critical that we know that our facts are sound, that our science is sound. So I ask people not to be swayed by the emotion. Caribou are beautiful animals, but I can tell you, we are caring for the caribou, our caribou are doing fine, our caribou are multiplying at a wondrous rate, and they are doing it around the areas of development. So it is important to try to show the rest of the country what ANWR is. But keep in mind, these little, tiny brief snapshots of a flowered field, with beautiful mountains in the background, are not where the 1002 area is that we are intending to drill. We are intending to drill an area that is the size of the Pinehurst Golf Resort in North Carolina, in an area that looks like the Moon. I appreciate the hour. I appreciate the attention to this issue because in my State there is nothing more important that is happening. I would certainly encourage my colleagues tomorrow to listen intently to the debate. I hope we move forward on oil and gas exploration along Alaska's Coastal Plain and oppose the Boxer amendment. I don't see anyone else in the Chamber. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 25, at 10:00 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 520, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District in the State of Idaho; and S. 625 a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies in the Tualatin River Basin in Oregon, and for other purposes. (Contact: Shelly Randel 202-224-7933 or Jared Stubbs at 202-224-7556). Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. committee on energy and natural resources