Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, March 16 at 11:30 a.m. to consider pending calendar business. Agenda Item 1: To consider the nomination of Jeffrey Clay Sell, to be Deputy Secretary of Energy. Agenda Item 2: To consider the nomination of Patricia Lynn Scarlett, to be the Deputy Secretary of the Interior. In addition, the Committee may turn to any other measures that are ready for consideration.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 9:15 a.m. to conduct a hearing regarding S. 606 The Reliable Fuels Act and The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005. The hearing will be in SD 406.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 10:00 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Expiring Tax Provisions: Live or Let Die.``

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold hearing on EU Arms to China.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2005 at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on army transformation and the future combat system in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. in open session to receive testimony on national security space policy and programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2006.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Obscenity Prosecution and the Constitution'' on Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 3:00 p.m. in SD226. The tentative witness list is attached. Panel I: Robert Destro, Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC; Patrick Trueman, Senior Legal Counsel, Family Research Council, Former Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Frederick Schauer, Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment, Shorenstein Center, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Are regular rules of the Senate to filibuster a bill? I do not understand what the Senator is saying. The only reason this is in the budget resolution is because he and others have threatened to filibuster it.

Mr. STEVENS. That is my question. Would the Senator guarantee us an up-or-down vote if we do not keep it in this resolution?

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield there?

Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to charge it against my time.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator state his party never tried to put an item in the budget resolution--

Mr. STEVENS. I am asking the Senator a question.

Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator saying his party has never used the same procedure to put in a budget resolution an item so it would avoid a filibuster?

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from Colorado wish to speak? I guess we are going to go back and forth.

Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: will that time be charged against the 2 hours of the Senator's time?

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am sorry I did not have a chance to visit with the Senator from Colorado sooner, but I would like to disabuse him of two things. The 1002 area is not wilderness, and 1002 is not within the wildlife refuge. That section specifically excludes it from the wildlife refuge until the period of oil and gas exploration is over. There is no question we have a difference of opinion, but I do hope we will stick to the facts. As a matter of fact, the Senator just read President Carter's letter. I am writing a response to President Carter because I also received that letter. I stood in the White House with him as he signed the bill in 1980. He did not want that bill to come to him before the election. He asked Congressman Mo Udall to hold it up until after the election because he believed he could not sign it if he was reelected. When he was not reelected, he did sign it, and he put into law the sections that pertain to this area and the overall refuge, but sections 1002 and 1003 specifically exclude this area from the refuge until the oil and gas exploration is over. There has historically been support for utilizing Alaska's oil interests to serve our national security interests. Senators Mark Hatfield and Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, who both represented northwestern States, agreed that the development of the North Slope was vitally important. They stated that the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and, in particular, the provision keeping the Coastal Plain of ANWR open for development was--this is their statement, and one of them was ``Scoop'' Jackson: It is crucial to the Nation's attempt to achieve energy independence. One-third of our known petroleum reserves are in Alaska, along with even greater potential. Actions such as preventing even exploration of the Arctic wildlife range is an ostrich-like approach that ill serves our Nation in this time of energy crisis. That was the statement of two northwestern Senators, including Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson. We are now at a critical juncture in terms of our energy dependence. The United States is at the mercy of the Middle East and others for our energy needs. As a matter of fact, today OPEC met in Iran to determine how much oil and at what price they would sell it to us. Opening of ANWR would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil which we rely on for over half our oil needs today. This development alone would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources of oil by 4 percent, not 1 percent, and would be produced from only 2,000 acres. The 10.4 billion barrels of oil that is estimated to be in this area translates to 436 billion gallons, and that is enough oil to fill up every car in America 115 times. Let me repeat that. People say there is not any oil. There is enough oil there to fill up every car in America 115 times. At 867,000 barrels a day, it would create 36 million gallons of gasoline, jet fuel and diesel fuel, heating oil, medicines, plastics, surgical devices, and other products vital to our Nation. There is no question there has been a lot said here that is misleading. I have in my hand something given to me before I came to the floor. It is from our colleague John Kerry. It says: The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close to winning. It goes on to say some things here that are absolutely not true, but it does pinpoint seven of our colleagues and asks for people to call them and put pressure on them now. It asks for an emergency donation right now. What for? We are going to vote tomorrow. I do not know why they need emergency donations. Beyond that, it says: Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife. For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northwest Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred ground. They do not even live there. They live on the South Slope of the Brooks Range. The Gwich'in people have nothing to do with the Arctic. The only thing they have to do with it is they harvest some of the caribou that come up the Porcupine River and go up to the North Slope about every year. But several years of the last 10 years they have not come up at all because they are hunted so hard by the Gwich'in people in Canada that there is not enough left of them to travel. The misinformation here is staggering, really staggering. Above all, I think we ought to get down to talking about what Eisenhower did. I was the solicitor of the Interior Department during the Eisenhower administration. I helped write the order that created the Arctic Wildlife Range in 1960. It was approved by President Eisenhower. It created an Arctic Wildlife Range open to oil and gas exploration and development specifically. When we had the great argument in the 1980s--really the late seventies, leading into 1980-- about the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, the question was should that area, the 1.4 million acres in the Arctic, be left open to oil and gas development as it had been left open by President Eisenhower's administration. I fought and fought, and we finally got the agreement with Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas that, yes, that would be left open under two conditions. One, we had to have an environmental impact statement and, second, we had to have the approval of the President and the Congress of that impact statement. We have tried now for 24 years--24 years--to have the Congress approve that. I heard the Senator from Colorado. I have had family connections with Colorado in the past, and I have great respect for his service in Colorado. It may interest him to know that I was the first person to testify in favor of the wilderness before the Senate on behalf of President Eisenhower. We value wilderness in our State, but this is not wilderness. It was never wilderness. It was specifically kept out of wilderness. Let me put up a chart. I want to point this out to the Senator. This is the Eisenhower I knew and for whom I worked. It was his World War II poster. Talk to the oil workers of America: Your work is vital to victory . . . our ships . . . our planes . . . our tanks must have oil. Stick to your job--oil is ammunition. That is why, in the 1970s, when we tried to get the Alaska oil pipeline built, there was never even a hint of filibuster. No one, not one Senator mentioned a filibuster. Instead, we all knew it was a security aspect that we were dealing with. It was oil, oil that we needed. We had an embargo from, I think, November to March. We had no imports of oil. That could happen again. Again, I point out where they are meeting. They are meeting today in Iran. The letter President Carter wrote said: It seems possible some in Congress may be trying to subvert parts of ANILCA by inserting provisions in this budget resolution designed to circumvent normal legislative procedures. The only reason we have been doing it is because it has been filibustered for 24 years--24 years. This is the first chance we have had, really, to keep it in this resolution. We did try it once before and when we did it before in the last Congress, no one accused us of sneaking. That is a sneaky thing to do. I ask unanimous consent Senator Kerry's flier be printed in the Record after my remarks, so people can see the depth to which people are going to accuse us of somehow doing something wrong.

Mr. STEVENS. We are trying to carry out the provisions of the 1980 act that allowed us to explore and develop this 1.5 million acres. It is a difficult thing for some of us to be accused of trying to subvert, to circumvent normal legislative procedures. President Carter indicates that this is a wilderness. It is not a wilderness. I stood in the White House with him and he acknowledged it then, the Jackson-Tsongas amendment was in the bill he signed in 1980, after the election--after the election. I don't know where you are, President Carter, but I wish you would tell the truth. Tell the truth to the American public. This is an area that was left open to exploration. I have here a chart. I don't know how many people can see it. I hope the Senator can see it. It shows the wilderness area of the old range, all of it except that portion that was named wilderness. If you look at this chart, the new addition made by President Carter was not made wilderness. There are 18 million acres there; 1.5 million acres were left for oil and gas exploration and the balance of the 8.6 million acres is wilderness. We do not oppose that wilderness. That was wilderness that we accepted as a designation because of the fact the area that was in the oil and gas province was left open to exploration. It is not wilderness. The problem is, the people who live on the North Slope--there was one young lady with me in the press conference who lives in Kaktovik. It is in the 1002 area, but it is not wilderness; it is coastal plain and specifically open to oil and gas exploration. Madam President, how much time have I used?

Mr. STEVENS. Let me know when I use 3 more minutes, please. I want to tell the Senator, one of the friends I had here in the Senate in days gone by was Senator Jim Buckley. Senator Jim Buckley left the Senate and became a judge. He is a judge in New York. He sent me this letter. You read a letter. Let me read you a letter from Judge Buckley, former Senator Buckley. He wrote this to me on January 24. Dear Ted, twenty-six years ago, after leaving the Senate-- -- And here it is for everybody to read. Twenty-six years ago, after leaving the Senate, I was a lead signatory in full-page ads opposing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve that appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post. I opposed it because, based on the information then available, I believed that it would threaten the survival of the Porcupine caribou herd and leave huge, long-lasting scars on fragile Arctic lands. Since then, caribou populations in the areas of Prudhoe Bay and the Alaskan pipeline have increased, which demonstrates that the Porcupine herd would not be threatened, and new regulations limiting activities to the winter months and mandating the use of ice roads and directional drilling have vastly reduced the impact of oil operations on the Arctic landscape. In light of the above, I have revised my views and now urge approval of oil development in the 1002 Study Area for the following reasons: 1. With proper management, I don't see that any significant damage to arctic wildlife would result, and none that wouldn't rapidly be repaired once operation ceased. 2. While I don't buy the oil companies' claim that only 2,000 acres would be affected, even if all of the 1.5 million-acre Study Area were to lose its pristine quality (it wouldn't), that would still leave 18.1 million acres of the ANWR untouched plus another five million acres in two adjoining Canadian wildlife refuges, or an area about equal to that of the States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. In other words, it is simply preposterous to claim that oil development in the Study Area would ``destroy'' the critical values that ANWR is intended to serve. 3. In light of the above, it is economic and (to a much lesser degree) strategic masochism to deny ourselves access to what could prove our largest source of a vital resource. Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the past 13 years (including a recent camping trip on Alaska's North Slope), I don't think I can be accused of being insensitive to the charms of the Arctic qua Arctic. I just don't see the threat to values I cherish. There is the man who signed the ads. He started the drive. He literally was the one who started the drive that everyone else now has joined, and that is the drive to prevent us from carrying out the intent of the 1980 Alaska Lands Act. I will have a lot more to say about this tomorrow. But above all, I wish people would start telling the truth. No. 1, it has never been wilderness. No. 2, it has been open to oil and gas development since the Eisenhower days and remains open. It only takes the approval of Congress to proceed with that. No. 3, the Gwich'ins don't live on the North Slope. The Gwich'ins are not residents of this area. And, No. 4, it has not been harming and would not harm the caribou. The caribou around the oil pipeline have increased from 3,000 to over 300,000 in the central Alaska herd. We are not bad stewards of our lands. We have protected more wilderness than all the rest of the Nation put together. We have been good stewards of our land. We have managed our wildlife better than any other State. It is ridiculous to be put on trial because of a group of professional, extreme environmentalists who make money. Look, Senator Kerry is sending out requests for them: Send money in now. You need money. You need money to fight this because this is going to be voted on tomorrow. It is preposterous. Again, I am sorry I did not get a chance to visit with my friend from Colorado. I admire Colorado and I know what they have down there. You should come see our wilderness areas. We have wilderness areas, a great deal more than you have seen in your life, more wilderness areas in one State than there is in the whole Nation. To have people mischaracterize this as wilderness is absolutely preposterous. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 John Kerry Dear Friend. We have only 24 to 48 hours to try and save the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Republicans are trying to sneak legislation through the Senate approving oil drilling and they are incredibly close to winning. We have to stop them. I am joining with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) in offering a critical amendment to stop this sneak attack on our environment. We will fight on the floor of the Senate, but we need you by our side. There are seven key Republican Senators whose votes will decide the future of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Before they vote, we need to make sure they know that their constituents are watching, and that they will not be able to support drilling without anybody noticing. Here are two critical steps we can take together to support our amendment to protect this National Wildlife Refuge: 1. Join the Citizens' Roll Call. First of all, take part in a massive fast-moving display of citizen support for the Arctic Refuge. Sign our Cantwell-Kerry Citizens' Roll Call now. http://www.johnkerry.com/RollCall. To make our Citizens' Roll Call impossible to ignore, we have alerted the media, environmental advocates and my fellow Senators to a scrolling display of the names and home towns of the roll call signers. It is posted on our johnkerry.com website, where we hope to soon add your name and a running tally of the number of citizens on our Citizens' Roll Call. 2. Bring the fight to the home states of the seven senators. We need to launch emergency online advertising campaigns in the home states of those seven critical senators: Senator Coleman (MN), Senator Smith (OR), Senator Specter (PA), Senator Martinez (FL), Senator Lugar (IN), and Senators Gregg and Sununu (NH). We need your help to bring our Save the Arctic Refuge message home in these six states. Help us fund an emergency ad campaign to make sure they know how strongly the people they represent feel about protecting the Arctic. Please make an emergency donation right now. http:// contribute.johnkerry.com/. When Senator Cantwell, myself and other Senators stand up in support of the Cantwell-Kerry amendment, we will have powerful arguments on our side. (I have recapped some of those arguments at the end of this email message.) But, to win, we need to be able to report directly to our Senate colleagues that massive numbers of citizens around the country--and in their own states--are rising up to demand that the Senate protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That's why your immediate signature is so critical. http:// www.johnkerry.com/RollCall. The Bush Administration and its oil industry allies want to send a message that they can drill for oil wherever and whenever they want to--even if it means targeting a place as striking, pristine and irreplaceable as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They don't care about putting America on a genuine path to energy independence. If they did, they'd support efforts to increase energy conservation and to create clean, renewable sources of energy that no terrorist can sabotage and no foreign government can seize. Let me be very direct with you. It is going to take an immediate and impossible-to-ignore display of grassroots support to stop them. That's why your decision to sign our Cantwell-Kerry Amendment Citizens' Roll Call is so crucial. Thank you for acting quickly on this vital request. John Kerry. P.S. Senator Cantwell, who comes from a state in the heart of the Pacific Northwest, has--at considerable political risk--courageously stepped forward to join me in leading this fight. We need you to help us win it. Here are your save the arctic refuge talking points: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact expanse of arctic and subarctic lands remains protected. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil to supply America's needs for six months. And oil companies admit that, even that won't be available for at least 10 years. An irreplaceable natural treasure, the Arctic Refuge is home to caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles, snow geese and more. Millions of other birds use the Arctic Refuge to nest and as a critical staging area on their migratory journeys. Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife. For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred ground.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, had the Senator been there, he would understand, as I have said, that Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas said we will go ahead when the Congress and the President approve the environmental impact statement. Section 1003 spells that out. The land is not available for gas leasing until we act. That is true. But it is not wilderness, either. It is not refuge, either. That is the difference.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the Senate tonight to sort of finish up the day, mainly because I am a westerner. I know that many people listen to the coverage of the Senate, but in the West it often happens that the speeches pertaining to the interests of the West come off in the middle of the day. And it is now 8:40 p.m. here. That means it is 5:40 on the west coast and 4:40 in Alaska, my home. I feel the west coast has been misrepresented as far as the issues that pertain to the development of the Arctic Slope in my State. Gone are the days of the great supporters such as Warren Magnuson and Senator Jackson and Senator Hatfield from Oregon and Senator Hayakawa and others from California. We have almost unanimous opposition to the development of the Arctic Slope now from the west coast. Yet it was the west coast that got most of the oil that came from the development of Prudhoe Bay. I have lived through this whole period and I want to talk a little bit about the history of it. But I hope people living on the west coast who listen to this and view this program will think a little bit about it and call their Senators and ask them, Why are they opposing the development of domestic oil? Why are they insisting on relying upon foreign sources of oil? In recent months many have voiced concern about the emerging economic recovery, job creation, our national security, and increasing gasoline prices. In my view, we can only have a full debate on this budget resolution if we discuss what I believe is the source of many of these problems. It has been 12 years since the United States adopted comprehensive energy legislation, adopted a bill to send to the President a new energy program. For more than a decade, our outdated policy has been a barrier to our economic growth and opportunity. It is like a cancer spreading to all corners of our country and all industries in our economy. Without sound, balanced energy policy that reflects our current circumstances, Americans will continue to see the symptoms of this cancer in their daily lives: higher prices at the pump, the fear of whole cities held hostage by blackouts, and the whims of unstable governments and unfriendly regimes we rely upon for basic energy needs. I hope later to address the sweeping impact of our Nation's insufficient energy policy on all segments of our economy. But I want to begin tonight by putting these issues in historical context and reviewing the history of what is called ANWR and the energy crisis of the 1970s. In 1960, Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton established the 8.9 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Range and stipulated the range was open for mineral leasing. As the only current Member who worked in the Eisenhower administration, and one who drafted portions of the order creating the Arctic National Wildlife Range, attempts to convince the Congress that the range was ever closed to oil and gas exploration is a mischaracterization of the intent of its creators, the history of the range, and the purpose of the coastal plain of ANWR itself. Contrary to misinformation, neither the Arctic Wildlife Range nor the coastal plain of ANWR were ``set aside specifically for preserving wildlife for future generations.'' That is a quote many people use. In fact, both the order creating the range and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which we call ANILCA, which created this area called ANWR, contain specific provisions permitting oil and gas exploration and development of our coastal plain. The process which culminated in the creation of the range was designed to balance a myriad of interests. As the then-solicitor for the Interior Secretary Seaton, my office was responsible for processing the order which established the range. I personally, as an Alaskan, worked with conservationists, Alaska sportsmen, and industry to find the appropriate balance between conservation and development. In fact, Secretary Seaton himself stated that ``Subsurface development will be undertaken in accordance with regulations that will protect and preserve the wildlife and the primitive character of the land.'' The then-Under Secretary at the time, Elmer Bennett, assured our State: This Department has every intention to foster legitimate oil and gas activity within this area if any potential is discovered. Many have forgotten the lessons learned in the 1970s. Before the energy crisis, there were warning signs. In Congress, we held extensive hearings in 1972 on all aspects of energy supply, and we were warned over and over that unless we reevaluated our Nation's policy on energy consumption and development, the country would essentially be unable to meet its energy needs. By increasing our dependence on foreign oil year after year and failing to increase domestic production, we left ourselves vulnerable to OPEC's decision on October 18, 1973, to impose the Arab oil embargo. OPEC's decision was a retaliatory act. It was retribution for our foreign policy during the October Middle East war. The embargo lasted until March 1974, and as a Member of the Senate in 1973, I can tell you those were difficult times. The cost of foreign oil rose nearly 400 percent, and the impact on our constituents was brutal. Our people waited in long lines at gas stations throughout our Nation, and the cost of gasoline prevented them from traveling by automobile as they had in the past. The embargo decreased industrial productivity, increased unemployment, and accelerated inflation. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger estimated that the embargo of the 1970s cost us 500,000 jobs and more than $10 billion in national production. America's consumers paid the price for that crisis. The price of oil rose, but so did the price of coal, natural gas, electricity, and even firewood. My colleague at the time, Senator Henry Jackson from Washington, estimated every American paid almost $500 more in 1974 for energy. Adjusted for inflation, that would be over $1,000 apiece today. I remember well President Nixon's words, when the oil embargo began, in a televised speech on November 7, 1973. He called on Congress to enact a major energy bill, something he had asked us to do repeatedly for 2 years. He told the country: Our failure to act now on our long-term energy problems could seriously endanger the capacity of our farms and factories to employ Americans at recordbreaking rates . . . It could reduce the capacity of our farmers to provide the food we need. It could jeopardize the entire transportation system. It could seriously weaken the ability of America to continue to give the leadership which only we can provide to keep the peace that we have won at such great cost . . . What strikes me as I read President Nixon's speech today is that President Bush could give the same speech now. We again need comprehensive energy legislation, and the stakes are still high. In the wake of the 1970s energy crisis, Congress debated the Trans- Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. During that debate, opposition came to the Senate floor and made dire predictions. They argued that construction of the pipeline would devastate Alaska's landscape and wildlife in the area. For instance, Senator Kennedy predicted: Earthquakes [would] create oil spills which would wreak havoc with the Alaskan environment . . . The heat generated by the oil flow . . . would have a detrimental effect on Alaskan tundra and upset the whole ecology of the region . . . and the pipeline [would] become a barrier which would seriously interrupt the migratory patterns and normal movements of various species of wildlife. And the friends of the Earth testified at a congressional hearing in 1969: There is no technology that could restore the wilderness that the pipeline would destroy. These dire predictions did not come to pass. The Alaskan pipeline withstood an earthquake of 7.9 magnitude on the Richter scale and not a drop of oil was spilled--not one drop during that earthquake. Similarly, our tundra has not been impacted by the flow of oil, nor has the migration of wildlife been affected. In fact, the caribou population in the vicinity of the pipeline increased from 3,000 in the 1970s to 32,000 today. Even former Congressman Mo Udall, who had argued on the floor of the House that the pipeline would damage Alaska's ecosystem acknowledged that he was wrong. He stated; We've had 15 years or so with Prudhoe and we came out pretty good. . . . the people who talked about ecological disaster have been proven very wrong. Environmental organizations agreed during debate on the pipeline that development of Alaska's resources is important. Stephen R. Seater of the Defenders of Wildlife testified: Defenders of Wildlife does not oppose development of Alaskan North Slope oil and gas. The United States is suffering from a lack of fuel, and it has been said by many experts that by mid-summer we will be in a full-blown fuel crisis. And Thomas B. Stoel of the Natural Resources Defense Council testified: [T]he national security importance of Alaskan North Slope oil is that it will relieve the United States of the necessity to import an equal amount of foreign oil. Despite differences over the possible routes for the transportation of Alaska's oil resources to the Lower 48, almost all Members of the Senate and House agreed that development of Alaskan oil was vitally important to both America's national security and the continued economic well being of the U.S. I emphasize this: that is why the vote on passage of the Pipeline Act was allowed to proceed without the threat of filibuster. Not one Senator suggested filibustering the Alaskan Oil Pipeline Act. The passage of the Pipeline Act was adopted by one vote when Vice President Agnew came to Congress and broke the tied vote. Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to move immediately to authorize construction of the 798-mile pipeline connecting the North Slope with the port of Valdez to deliver oil to the Lower 48. Four years later, the first tanker carrying North Slope crude oil left Valdez, Alaska. Over 14 billion barrels of oil have been transported through the pipeline since then. Today it provides nearly 20 percent of our domestic oil production, although the throughput of the pipeline has been reduced from a peak of 2.1 million barrels per day to about 750,000 barrels per day. That is why we must get into ANWR and that is why we must discover additional reserves. At the time, construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was the largest privately financed construction project ever attempted. It stands as a testament to American ingenuity and our ability to balance protection of the environment with production of our natural resources. Alaska's vast resource potential was again raised in 1978 during debate on the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. This act resulted in the creation of over 100 million acres of parks, wildlife refuges and national forests and tripled the amount of land designated as wilderness. During this debate, the Alaska delegation asked for a stipulation to allow the coastal plain of ANWR to remain open for oil and gas exploration and development, as it was when the Arctic Range was created. As in the pipeline debate, many Members raised concerns about the environmental impact such development would have on the region. However, even those Members acknowledged that oil and gas exploration and development would occur if necessary for our national security. Even Congressman Udall stated: [N]othing stops some future Congress from allowing the exploration for these uses if they are of sufficient national importance. He went on to say that a: sizable find in the Arctic Range [would be] economically feasible by the year 2000. Thus, even a staunch environmentalist acknowledged that the coastal plain of ANWR would be developed in the future. To ensure that the oil and gas rich coastal plain remained open for exploration and development, I worked closely with Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson and Senator Paul Tsongas. They promised that oil and gas activity would take place in ANWR subject to an environmental impact statement. In the spirit of compromise, Senators Jackson and Tsongas created Section 1002 of ANILCA, which set aside 1.5 million acres along the coastal plain of ANWR for oil and gas exploration and development. But in the years that followed, the promise made by Senators Jackson and Tsongas has not been upheld. I have now fought for 24 years to see that promise fulfilled and to bring to the United States the energy resources it so desperately needs. I have been thwarted because this body no longer respects the promises made by its predecessors. There is a new climate in Congress. With the retirement and passing of the old bull World War II types like myself, a Member's word doesn't carry the meaning it used to. Even President Jimmy Carter, who signed the 1980 act, has failed to honor the legislation he helped create. I recently received a letter from President Carter which said that ``Congress may try to subvert parts of ANILCA'' by utilizing the budget process. Congress has not gone back on its commitments, nor is it taking a ``back door approach'' to legislating this important issue. Section 1002 specifically authorizes exploratory oil and gas activities on the coastal plain and mandates an environmental study. That environmental impact study was completed and submitted to Congress in 1987! Section 1003 of the 1980 act states that no development in ANWR can take placement without Congressional authorization. We have tried for years to open ANWR pursuant to that section, and have been thwarted by the threat of a filibuster. President Carter also stated that we are trying to ``circumvent normal legislative procedures'' by inserting ANWR into the budget process. I ask my colleagues, since when have filibusters become ``normal legislative procedure?'' Isn't the will of the people served by a simple majority vote? That is all we are asking for when we put this in the Budget Resolution, a simple majority vote, and not subjecting ANWR to a filibuster, which was unheard of in the 1970's in matters concerning national security, and the availability of this oil from our Arctic is surely a matter of national security. This year is my 37th year in the Senate; I can remember a time when the filibuster was used sparingly, and I don't recall it ever being used when an issue of national security importance was before the Senate. ANWR is a national security issue. When the Nation depends on 60 percent of our energy needs from unstable or unfriendly regimes, that involves a national security issue. When U.S. companies move their operations offshore because of high energy prices, this is a national security issue. When Americans can no longer afford to heat their homes, this is a national security issue. And when our military, which is the largest consumer of energy resources, is forced to rely on oil from the Middle East, this is a national security issue. This Congress has failed to balance conservation with development and now we are--literally--paying the price. We have not seized opportunities to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas. And, higher gasoline prices, dependence on foreign oil, and a fragile economy--issues that many Members have expressed concern about--are the signs that another energy crisis looms over us. It is my hope that my colleagues will heed the lessons of history and act now. We cannot wait for another national crisis. The provisions in the budget resolution starting the process of approval of ANWR by majority vote must be supported. Further, Congress must make good on its promise and open ANWR to exploration and development and begin the projects our country needs to meet our energy demands now. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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