Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today, the Senate adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 15. I further ask that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 18, the budget resolution; provided further that upon returning to the resolution, there be 16 hours 8 minutes remaining for each side.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, tomorrow the leader wishes Senators to know the Senate will resume consideration of the budget resolution. We will continue the amendment process tomorrow morning. Each side will have policy luncheons tomorrow; however, the Senate may remain in session during that period. For the remainder of the day, we will continue to work through additional amendments and Senators should expect rollcall votes throughout the day and into the evening tomorrow.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Is there any further business to come before the Senate? If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 30 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning because of the misinformation being spread, particularly through the press, in the past weeks on what is called ANWR. It is the area in the 1\1/2\ million acres of our arctic coast that has been set aside since 1980 for oil and gas development. I have been involved in this issue almost since the beginning of my career. I want to talk a little bit about the history of this area. In 1923, President Harding withdrew 23 million acres for the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4. That did not include the area of the arctic we are dealing with today, but it was the first indication to the Nation that there was tremendous oil and gas potential in the northern region of Alaska. We were a territory then, and this withdrawal came right after the teapot dome scandal. So even then there were indications of places in the United States where there were areas that could be explored or developed for oil. This withdrawal was important because the Navy used a great deal of oil. They used to take it right out of the ground in Alaska and pump it right into Navy vessels. They burned the real crude oil at that time. It was essential to develop and use the Alaska resources for national defense. The whole concept of Alaska has played a strategic role in national security throughout its history, particularly beginning in 1923. Incidentally, that was the year of my birth. So I have been around during this whole period. In 1943, as World War II was going on, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land Order 82, which withdrew all of the public and non public lands in Northern Alaska--encompassing over 48 million acres. One of the reasons stated by the Secretary at that time was that tremendous amount of oil and gas that might be in northern Alaska were necessary for use in connection with the prosecution of the war. As a matter of fact, history shows that in about 1919, there was a group of people who went to the northern area of Alaska along the arctic coast and started staking mining claims, claiming the oil in those lands. That led Congress, in 1920, to enact the Mineral Leasing Act. Particularly the Texans didn't want to see Alaskan oil developed through a patenting process where they didn't have to deal with the national concern. As a matter of fact, it was, I think, basically the southwestern oil bloc that led to the two orders I mentioned. They were afraid of the real development of northern Alaska. There were oil seeps all the way along the arctic coast. People knew there was oil. The question was, where were the areas which could be commercially developed? Public Land Order 82 was still in existence when I went to the Interior Department in the 1950s. I was Legislative Counsel and Assistant to then Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton. At the end of the Eisenhower administration, I was the Solicitor of the Interior Department. I worked with Secretary Seaton at the time he decided to revoke Public Land Order 82 because there were vast areas up there that we thought had oil and gas potential, and we wanted to get to them. Our Statehood Act, which came about in 1958, required approval of the President of the United States to have any development north of the line, what is called the pick line. The Porcupine and Yukon Rivers basically made that line. President Eisenhower, again, in the interest of national security, said nothing should take place, no action should take place up there of a national nature without consideration of national security. It took approval of the President to revoke that Public Land Order 82 and to start allowing the State of Alaska to select lands. After Secretary Seaton had issued the order to revoke Public Land Order 82, the State of Alaska did, in fact, select a portion of land between the Naval Petroleum Reserve and an area Secretary Seaton created in 1960 which was the Arctic National Wildlife Range. Again I want to say, the Range, which included the 1.5 million acres of Arctic coast we are debating today, was created to assure the Fairbanks Women's Garden Club that there would be protection of the flora and fauna of northeastern Alaska. At that time, what was not withdrawn--the 25 million acres on one side of the Naval Petroleum Reserve to the west and the Arctic wildlife range to the east--was a corridor that later became known as the Prudhoe Bay area. From that area, after discovery of oil in 1968, we have now produced over 16 billion barrels of oil, although at the time the estimate of those involved in making the survey was that up to 1 billion barrels of oil might be recoverable from this area. When Secretary Seaton revoked Public Land Order 82 in 1960, he also created the 8.9-million-acre Range. I helped draw up that order. That order specifically permitted oil and gas activities to take place under stipulations to protect the fish and wildlife. After the Eisenhower administration came to an end, President Kennedy was elected. On the first day of that new administration, I visited with Stewart Udall who was to be the new Secretary of Interior. I told him the background of what we had done. His brother was in the House of Representatives. He disagreed with me about what was to happen in that area. At the time in 1960 when we issued the order creating the Range, the Under Secretary of Interior, Elmer Bennett, who used to be a staff member of the Senate, assured Alaskans that ``this Department has every intention to foster legitimate oil and gas activity within this area, if any potential is discovered.'' There is no question about it, the Eisenhower administration strictly approved the concept of setting aside an area to protect the fish and wildlife but also mandated in the order that oil and gas leasing would be protected. I was appalled this last week when some of the Eisenhower family came forward and sort of indicated that it was the intention of President Eisenhower that this area be a wilderness. Nothing is further from the truth. That is not the truth at all. We did not withdraw a wilderness; we withdrew a wildlife range. I believe there is no question about this: We are heading into an area about which people ought to know the history. Let me go further than that. As Assistant to the Secretary and then Solicitor, I studied the Alaska Native claims. I was from Alaska, and Secretary Seaton, on the floor of this Senate, as a Senator, made only one speech, and that was a speech to urge Congress to admit Alaska into the Union as a State. He was committed to Alaska statehood, and he asked me to come down and join him in the Department. I readily did that. Elmer Bennett, who was the Under Secretary, was a friend of mine. We started off to develop the concept of getting Alaska into the Union. Section 4 of the Statehood Act, which I also helped draft along with my predecessor Senator Bartlett, who was a delegate from Alaska to the House of Representatives, specifically required that Congress take action to settle the Alaska Native land claims. I say parenthetically, prior to that time, Alaska statehood was defeated because the Alaska Native people and their representatives opposed statehood because they had substantial claims against the United States and they were afraid of concepts of land grants to the new State that might harm them. We wrote in section 4 of the Statehood Act that Congress would take that act, and nothing in the Statehood Act would expand or diminish the claims of Alaska Natives against the Federal Government. During this time, my predecessors, Senators Gruening and Bartlett, introduced bills to try to settle these claims. They were not enacted because they were not acceptable to Alaska Natives. When I came to the Senate in 1968, I started participating in the activity and introduced the bill to settle Alaska Native land claims. I met with President Nixon later in 1970, along with representatives of the Alaska Natives, in order to urge the President to come forward and support an enormous land settlement. President Nixon, to his credit, did do that. He agreed with us. With me at the time was a person named Don Wright, who was a member of the State legislature when I was there, a distinguished leader of the Gwich'in community. We developed the concept of settling the land claims by the State and Federal Government participating together in a billion-dollar cash settlement and the Federal Government recognizing that entitled Alaska Natives to 44 million acres and that those lands would come ahead of the statehood selections under the Statehood Act. We proceeded with the land claim settlement, and by 1971 we had a bill which was a very good bill. It required the approval for the first time of Alaskans, who voted to accept that bill to become a State. We, in fact, developed a compact with the United States in our statehood process. At the time in 1958 when we required the settlement by Congress, we recognized there were valid claims of the Native people. My bill, along with my colleague, then-Senator Gravel, brought about the settlement of those claims. A byproduct of that was we created a series of regional corporations for the Alaska Native people. Those corporations and their village corporations also--the land was separated between the village corporations and the regional corporations. The net result of it was that the regional corporations were subject to one unique provision I authored, which was that any regional corporation that received income from resource development--it is called 7(I) in that 1971 act--was required to share those revenues with the other 11 regional corporations. This was very important because Don Wright, who had been with me at the time of the meetings with President Nixon and represented the Gwich'in people, decided they did not want to share. They withdrew from the settlement in terms of being an area subject to the concept of a regional corporation, and they took the title to their lands, subject only to the control and advice of the Secretary of Interior. But they did not participate in the settlement in any other way. They were allowed to take their lands, and they got some of the cash, but they did not come under 7(I). I mention that because often the representatives of the Gwich'in people visit this city. The Gwich'in people live on the South Slope of Alaska. It is the North Slope that has the oil. It is the North Slope that had Prudhoe Bay. It is the North Slope that has the Arctic coast. But the Gwich'in people, particularly the Arctic village people, withdrew from the settlement for the reason they thought they had the oil. They immediately tried to lease their lands, and no one wanted them. They also had coal, and they thought they should have coal development. They urged for coal development. No one wanted to develop their coal. Where they are located, it is almost impossible to have a corridor to the south without going east and then south. It was just not economically feasible. It might be sometime in the future. But the Gwich'in people lost out by their decision to go it alone. They now come to the Congress and say do not allow the Arctic coast to be developed for oil--just a few of them, not all of them. They should not be listened to. The people who should be listened to are the people who live in the area. One of the reasons they oppose oil and gas development in the Arctic plain is that they say it might hurt the porcupine caribou herd that comes over their lands. Those herds go over to the traditional area. Only a portion are Canadian natives who migrated to Alaska. In Canada, that same caribou herd is subject to commercial hunting. It is being depleted because of the practices in Canada, not because of any problem in Alaska. As a matter of fact, there are years during which the caribou do not even go to the North Slope in Alaska because of the problems they face in Canada. When the Alaska oil pipeline was authorized by Congress in the seventies, we heard these same arguments: The development of the pipeline is going to destroy the caribou; it is going to destroy the environment. None of that has been true. The same people who made the arguments then are making them now. The same organizations that collect money from Americans throughout the country now--``send in your money and help save the Arctic''--tried that then. The 3,000 caribou in the area of the pipeline are now 32,000. They have not been harmed at all. Alaskans do not allow our wildlife to be harmed. We will protect the caribou when they do come to the Arctic coast. I wonder, Mr. President, if you know that there is no oil and gas drilling activity in the summertime. If there have been production facilities put in during the wintertime, you can produce oil in the summertime as long as you do not interfere with the wildlife. The oil industry wants to do it in the wintertime because the lands are frozen. They can take equipment across the lands easily. They can build ice roads. They can develop whatever they want and put them on pads, and when they leave, they remove the pads, and the roads thaw in the summertime. I challenge anyone to come up and find where the camps were to build the Alaska oil pipeline. When we hear these extreme environmentalists talk, one would think developing the oil and gas of the Arctic plain would harm it. That is not true at all. The new technology we are using in oil and gas in Alaska will take an area smaller than Dulles Airport to develop this 1.5 million acres. But that is another thing. We experienced an oil crisis in the 1970s precipitated by the Arab oil embargo. At that time, we were importing about a third of our oil, and the embargo devastated our economy. Today, we import 60 percent of our oil. Imagine the consequences of an embargo now. In the wake of this energy crisis, Congress debated the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. During this debate, there was an understanding on both sides of this aisle, no filibuster. The final pipeline was approved when the Vice President of the United States cast his vote to break the tie of 49 to 49, but there was no hint of filibuster from either side. There were people on both sides who disagreed with the pipeline, but they said it has to be an up-or- down vote. This was important for our national security. It was a national security issue because our nation needed oil. And the debate we are currently having now is about oil from this area that is known as ANWR. It is not part of a refuge. It will not become a part of the refuge until the oil and gas development phase is completed. Sometime when we have exhausted the oil resources, it will become part of the refuge. But today it is managed with the intent that there will be oil and gas leasing there as soon as Congress approves the environmental impact statement that was passed. That was the compromise that came about in 1980. So I want to skip from 1971 to 1980 by saying that in the Alaska Native Land Claim Settlement Act, section 17(d)(2) required that there be a study of Alaska's lands in order that we might determine what lands should be withdrawn. That debate started in 1972 and did not end until 1980. It was a battle between the forces led in the House by Mo Udall and in this body by Senators Jackson and Tsongas. I and my colleague, Senator Gravel, tried our best to represent Alaska. We had a bill almost completed in 1978. It had passed the House and the Senate and gone to conference. Both Senator Gravel and I had participated in that conference. Even though I was not a member of the committee at the time, they permitted me to be in that conference for a long period of time. After the bill had passed the House in the waning moments that ended the 1978 Congress, Senator Gravel blocked that bill. So when we came back in 1979, we had to go back and deal with it again. After Senator Gravel blocked the bill, President Carter withdrew 100 million acres of Alaskan land under what is called the Antiquities Act. Congress had to pass a bill to lift that withdrawal made by President Carter in order that we might proceed with the development of Alaska and allow Alaskans to select statehood lands and the Alaskan Native people to get their land claims to those lands. We worked very hard and we finally got a bill that passed the Senate and passed the House, went to conference, and came back to the Senate. This is 1980. It passed the Senate as a conference report and went to the House. President Carter asked the House not to pass it before the election because he disagreed with section 1002 that created the 1.5 million acres in which oil and gas development was permitted. After that election, which President Carter lost, President Carter then asked the House to pass the bill. That bill was signed by him after the election and before he left office. In that election, Republicans gained a majority of the Senate. My constituents asked me to do everything I could to block that bill. It had already passed the Senate. When the President signed it, it became law. The ink was not dry before President Carter tried to renege on the law that he had just signed. Even today a letter has come now to us from President Carter. It is a letter that I am appalled at, as a matter of fact. For a President to have signed a law and said he was part of the development of that law, but then urge us not to follow the law is amazing to me. There has been a similar letter come to me, and that I have shared with the Senate, and that happens to be the letter from former Senator Jim Buckley. In the 1970s, Jim Buckley, as he left the Senate, became one of the opponents of the development of this area. As a matter of fact, he had voted against it while in the Senate. Unsolicited, on January 24, former Senator Buckley, now Judge Buckley, sent me a letter. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. STEVENS. He pointed out: 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 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. He lists the three reasons, and he specifically says, as he closes: Having visited the Arctic on nine occasions over the last 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. It is signed ``Sincerely, Jim.'' Now, that represents an informed point of view. I am now in a position where I think we must address what has been said in the newspapers and so many areas about the value of the oil in this area. The coastal plain of ANWR is not a wilderness area. There was a test well drilled in this area, the results of which remain secret under an agreement between the oil industry and the Federal Government. It was drilled near Kaktovik. When we hear people such as Senator Feingold say ANWR should not be in the budget resolution because the land does not have any value, he is wrong. The land does have value. As I said before, when we were trying to develop Prudhoe Bay, the estimate was made that there was a billion barrels of oil at the most in Prudhoe Bay. After producing 16 billion barrels, we know there is oil on the coastal plain of ANWR. There is no question that we have a duty, in the interest of national security, to drill in this area. The budget that is coming before us, and I will be speaking again next week on this, has a provision which deals with the estimate of the amount of money received by the Federal Government and the State in the first 5 years of the development of this area. I believe that is $5 billion. Those revenues would be split between the State and the Federal Government. In the process of valuing what the oil might be worth, the value of $25 a barrel for oil has been used. I asked the CBO: Why do you not use the actual amount of oil today, which is over $50? They said that was the amount used when they first made the study, and they have not had any studies to justify raising that now. As their baseline for oil, they are using $25 a barrel. So anyone who says this is not a valuable thing in the budget because of the money that is going to be raised ought to understand the minimum that will come in will be twice that amount. People are going to base their bids on the value of the oil that might be produced. I will speak longer on this at a later date, but I want to say one thing. At the time President Carter signed this bill in 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, I was urged to block it. President Carter had received about 90 percent of what he wanted in this bill. By preserving rights of access to Alaskans, the right to use traditional means of transportation, and protection of native peoples and communities, Alaskans got 10 percent. The only major difference was the 1002 area. The amendment that provided for the 1002 area was authored by Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas, not by me. It was authored by them as a compromise with Alaska, and it guaranteed that we would be able to explore this area that is so valuable to our future. This is the area that former President Carter asks Congress now to take back, and some members of the House want to turn it into a wilderness area now. After we were elected to the majority and getting ready for the session in 1981, I was assistant leader. Senator Baker was the majority leader. I had calls from home: Change this law and change it now. I said, no. In Alaska we have a saying from Robert Service: A promise made is a debt unpaid. I entered into an agreement with Senator Jackson and Senator Tsongas that we would accept what they and President Carter wanted, conditioned upon Alaska retaining its rights to explore and develop the Arctic coast of Alaska. In 1981, we could have changed it. I was urged to change it. Now, after 24 years of arguing over this issue, and it has been before this Congress and this Senate every year since 1981, I told a group the other day I am distressed that I must argue again and again for Congress to keep its promise to the Alaskan people. This year I will argue that again. My mind goes back to those Alaskans--they put a full page ad in the paper saying: Ted, come home. You no longer represent Alaska. Come home so someone else can change that law and get some of the things we did not achieve under the 1980 act. Now all we are asking is for the Congress, and particularly this Senate, to follow that law to allow us to proceed with this development. But what do we face? We face a filibuster, something that was unheard of when the oil pipeline was considered. We now have the issue of oil exploration and development before us, and in an area even more promising than Prudhoe Bay, in my judgment. We know it is a larger structure under the Earth. It could contain more oil than even Prudhoe Bay, although the estimates are lower. When we look at it, the simple question before the Senate, in my mind, is, Is this a national security issue? Is the ability to fill the Alaskan oil pipeline a national security issue? During the Persian Gulf war we sent 2.1 million barrels of oil a day to what we call the South 48, the continental U.S. Today we are sending 900,000. The pipeline is not full. The pipeline cannot be full again unless we obtain the oil from the Arctic coast. It is still a matter of national security. I challenge my friends who want to filibuster this. I challenge the necessity to try to get 60 votes to make this become a reality. That is why we have to use the Budget Act to try to avoid that threat of a filibuster, which did not exist in this Chamber on the Alaskan oil pipeline. I will be back again and again, because this may be my last stand at trying to convince Congress to keep its word. It is getting more difficult to serve in a Senate that cannot--cannot, and will not, carry out commitments that were made by previous occupants of this body. Thank you very much. exhibit 1 January 24, 2005. Hon. Ted Stevens, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Ted: 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 the, 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. With best regards, James L. Buckley.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 109th Congress. Pursuant to Rules XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Inouye, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Committee Rules be printed in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be excused from voting for the remainder of the day.

Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be entered into the Record today pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384 (b)(3)).

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is it proper to speak on a matter not concerning bankruptcy at this time without consent?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes on a matter not concerning the bankruptcy bill.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I hope all Members of Congress saw the news yesterday, that oil prices reached $55 a barrel. Now, some of us reacted with shock and amazement, but others knew the reality that this day would come. We have witnessed the impact of these high energy prices every time we fill up our gas tanks and pay our heating or electric bills. These high prices are unsustainable, jeopardizing jobs and threatening the long-term health of our economy. The impact of high energy prices can be seen at all levels of our economy. High energy prices have produced job losses, trade deficits, and constraints on consumer spending and economic growth. Demand for energy in the United States is outstripping supply, and Americans are feeling the impact of Congress's failure to act to solve the problem. Our people rely on our ability to stabilize energy prices and provide them with the energy resources all of us need. The good news is that this worsening crisis is avoidable. The United States has the natural resources to increase our energy supply. But inconsistent Government policies discourage the exploration, development, and use of our own energy resources. Almost 30 percent of all the lands in this country are owned by the Federal Government. That is 657 million acres--almost four times the size of Texas. Under those lands lies 90 percent of the predicted undiscovered oil and 40 percent of our undiscovered natural gas. Those public resources are needed to meet our energy needs and secure our future. Since 1983, access to our Federal lands has declined by 60 percent. Over half of the lands that are designated currently as multiple use-- in other words, ones that oil and gas exploration could take place on-- are subject to highly restrictive land classifications or lease stipulations which effectively restrict energy exploration and development. The effect of these policies is clear. In 1981, 91,533 oil and gas wells were drilled in the United States. In 2000, that number declined to 29,284, almost down to 25 percent of what we did some 20 years ago. As a result, crude oil production in the United States is at a 50-year low, and permitting for oil and gas projects on Federal lands that once took 18 months--and that was considered a long time then--can now take up to 10 years. In some instances, it takes 10 years to clear a permit to start exploring for oil on Federal lands. Those delays force companies to pursue projects overseas rather than develop U.S. resources. Some people have commented upon the fact that the U.S. oil industry is no longer seeking to support the concept of drilling on Alaska's Arctic plain. They have opportunities all over the world where they can proceed much more rapidly than in this country, and there is no question that they need to find oil to meet our needs. What industry is going to put up the money for 10 years to explore for and develop energy here at home when it can go abroad and do that in less than 1 year? In a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, Stephen Entin, a former staff economist for the Joint Economic Committee and currently president of the Institute for Research On the Economics of Taxation, argued that our current policies actually support OPEC, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and enhance its power. By locking up our own lands we have basically manipulated prices because we have restricted competition from American companies, and OPEC reaps the benefits from an inequitable playing field. As a matter of fact, we encourage them to raise prices because our demand constantly increases and our domestic supply constantly decreases. Jobs and energy security have been outsourced, as we seek our energy security in places where there are unfriendly and unstable regimes. I have had personal talks with some members of the oil industry. They know that those are unstable regimes, but they have no alternative. For every $1 billion we spend to develop petroleum resources domestically we would create 12,500 jobs. That would mean that last year we lost over 1.3 million jobs by importing oil instead of producing it. People wonder why our jobs are going abroad. When we withdraw lands from oil and gas exploration, that is not free. Many people in this country think it is an easy decision and it doesn't cost anything. It is a very expensive policy. We are paying a huge price now because we have locked up our lands and made them inaccessible, when they purportedly are open, by restrictive policies, restrictive stipulations that take so long to comply with that no industry is going to put up the money and wait so long for the opportunity to see if there is oil and gas in those lands. The American taxpayer picks up the tab, and the American consumer is severely punished by this policy. Consumers are paying more for food, goods, and energy bills. According to Daniel Yergin, an economist from Cambridge Energy Associates, high energy and gasoline prices essentially act as a consumer tax, leaving Americans with less disposable income for travel, home buying, restaurants, and retail establishments, all of what we call our quality of life. Only yesterday, I received this estimate. It is estimated now that for every one-cent increase for gasoline at the pump, there is $1 billion lost in consumer spending. Just look at the price of gasoline now. The price of gasoline is at an alltime high, and it will not come down. It is going to continue to go up. In China, 5 years ago only 5 percent of their people were using energy. Now 15 percent are using it. Even at that low rate of 15 percent of their people using energy, talking about oil and gas energy, they have now passed Japan in consumption annually of oil and gas. They are second only to the United States, and only 15 percent of their people are using oil and gas so far. People blame a lot of things for these high prices, but the fact is the world is starting to use oil and gas. We are competing for the world's oil production and ignoring completely our capability to produce right here at home. Unless Congress acts to ensure greater domestic production of our oil and gas resources, our energy security is jeopardized. I am talking about security. We had one embargo since I have been in the Senate in the 1970s, when we were totally embargoed by OPEC. They would not sell us oil. At that time about 33 percent of our oil was coming in from OPEC countries. Today it is 60 percent. An embargo today would destroy our economy. There are many people who advocate quick fixes to use alternative sources. I believe there must eventually be alternative sources to oil and gas in our economy, but just relying on them and saying we are going to do it and never bringing that about has led us to the point where we no longer have the capability to produce the oil and gas to meet our needs in the event of national security. We believe that it is time now that we should review these policies, and one of the key policies, of course, is an area that comes from the development of an area in my State. In 1980, we passed the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, an act that withdrew over 100 million acres of Alaska's lands for national purposes. One provision in that bill guaranteed the right to explore the Arctic plain, a million and a half acres, for oil and gas, probably even then known as the area most probable to produce substantial quantities of oil and gas. It is estimated to contain 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Just as a comparison, when we first drilled at Prudhoe Bay, the estimate was it might contain 1 billion barrels of oil. We have already produced 16 billion barrels of oil from Prudhoe Bay. In other words, this area now considered to be capable of producing 10.4 billion barrels of oil is probably the last most significant oil and gas area in the country, and we have worked, now since 1981, to try to fulfill the promise made to us in the 1980 bill that that area could be explored. It is high time that we take action to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As I said, we rely upon foreign sources for 60 percent of our energy needs. The area of the Arctic plain, 1.5 million acres guaranteed to be available for oil and gas exploration, is there. Allowing exploration and development of this area that is known as ANWR, although it is not part of the refuge until oil and gas development is over, would improve our U.S. balance of trade, reduce the amount of money we spend abroad, and improve our national security by having available the capability to produce that amount of oil. It is estimated that by 2025, the United States will spend approximately $200 billion on foreign oil and petroleum products. By opening this area, and when it produces, we could save a considerable portion of that by producing our own oil and gas. It means we could create tens of thousands of jobs and contribute greatly to the overall economy. There is no question that we are now in an energy crisis. Anytime we see $55-dollar-a-barrel oil, that is a crisis. I cannot believe that Congress wants to wait until the price goes up to somewhere around $80. I believe it is going that high unless we start developing our domestic resources and look to alternative supplies of energy right here at home. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I feel honored to be here today to support this resolution recognizing the lifetime achievements of my good friend Howard Baker. Howard and I have been friends for a very long time. We arrived in the Senate at about the same time. Howard was elected in 1966, and I was appointed in 1968. In 1977, Howard became minority leader. I was elected minority whip. We became leaders of the majority in the Senate in 1981. Being part of the Senate leadership was a new chapter in my life, and I was privileged to start out on that path with Howard Baker. After the 1980 elections, we traveled together to the White House almost every couple of weeks to meet with President Reagan. I cherish those trips to the White House to this day. They remain some of my favorite memories of the time I have spent here in the Senate. Howard Baker is a great leader. He understands how to bring people together to accomplish great things. Those who were here during Howard's tenure, I am sure, remember his commitment to collegiality and fairness. It earned him tremendous respect among his colleagues in the Senate. He was a great choice for majority leader. All of us were honored to serve with him. In early 1984, I went to his office to discuss the future. Howard convinced me I should plan to stay in the Senate. Later that year, however, Howard announced his own retirement. And, as we know, he later became President Reagan's Chief of Staff. Catherine and I were sad when Howard lost his first wife, Joy. She was a wonderful woman. We were glad when he and Nancy found each other. Nancy, who is also a friend, served as a distinguished Senator here in her own right. She has been a great friend and partner for our friend Howard. In 1989, the day before Catherine and I were married, Howard called to tell me he needed to go to China, but Joy was ill--she was in the hospital--and Howard could not leave. Deng Xiaoping had called, as leader of China, and wanted to understand what ``Reaganism'' meant. When Howard could not go on the trip which Ronald Reagan asked him to take to answer that question, Howard dispatched me on that mission. Again, it was a wonderful memory for me, and I appreciated that honor. Catherine and I were married on December 30 and left for China on December 31. There was no time for a honeymoon. But we got on that plane to China at Howard's request, and we haven't stopped since. I am reminded of that every year now, and it has finally caught up with me. Catherine and I are scheduled to take that honeymoon this spring. So I am not allowed to call Howard to congratulate him because we cannot risk being dispatched again to some foreign country. Howard's time as Ambassador to Japan is only one chapter in the long and distinguished career the leader just talked about, a career that he spent serving the American people so well. Few men are more deserving of the honor of such a resolution, and Catherine and I wish our good friend and his good lady great luck in their pursuits.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record today pursuant to section 304(b)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1)).

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the attached statement from the Office of Compliance be printed in the Record today pursuant to section 304(b)(1) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1384(b)(1)).

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce, with Senators Inouye and Murkowski, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2005. Across our State of Alaska, Western States, and areas of the Northeast, local governments and businesses struggle each year to remove potential avalanches or recover from the disastrous effects of avalanches. While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member. The U.S. averages over 20 deaths a year from avalanches, a majority of which are results of recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. Earlier in January, 3 people were killed in two separate avalanches in northern Idaho and Utah, bringing the total number of people already killed in the U.S. this winter season to 16. Some States try and set aside money for rescues prior to the winter season, knowing that the resources required to clear all avalanche threats are not at hand. This bill brings those resources to the entities that need them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors, and our local communities.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today I introduce, with Senators Inouye and Murkowski, the Federal Land Recreational Visitor Protection Act of 2005. Across our State of Alaska, Western States, and areas of the Northeast, local governments and businesses struggle each year to remove potential avalanches or recover from the disastrous effects of avalanches. While such damage can bring hardships to many local communities, none can compare with the loss of a friend or family member. The U.S. averages over 20 deaths a year from avalanches, a majority of which are results of recreational activities in unmitigated avalanche areas. Earlier in January, 3 people were killed in two separate avalanches in northern Idaho and Utah, bringing the total number of people already killed in the U.S. this winter season to 16. Some States try and set aside money for rescues prior to the winter season, knowing that the resources required to clear all avalanche threats are not at hand. This bill brings those resources to the entities that need them the most, enabling us to significantly reduce the effects of avalanches on visitors, recreational users, transportation corridors, and our local communities.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dr. Condoleezza Rice's nomination for Secretary of State. I first met Dr. Rice when she served as the Soviet and East European Affairs adviser during the first Bush administration. Her reputation as an invaluable adviser was well established even then. She helped guide that administration through the reunification of Germany, rebellion in the Balkans, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Her unshakable commitment to freedom, democracy, international peace and justice are unquestioned. Philip Zelikow, who served with Dr. Rice on the National Security Council during this time, and is the Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, stated this: She believes in empowering people. In international affairs, that means real commitment to liberty and freedom. She sees the message of her life as a message of how to realize a person's potential. No one should ever become the prisoner of other people's expectations. Dr. Rice returned to Stanford at the close of the first Bush administration. In 1993, she became the first female and non-white provost in the university's history. She was also the youngest. My daughter, Lily, graduated from Stanford in 2003, so I have a unique appreciation for Dr. Rice's accomplishments. During her 6 years as provost, Dr. Rice succeeded in restoring Stanford's financial position, and also engaged in one of her passions--sports. A stalwart sports fan, Dr. Rice would regularly be seen cheering the Stanford Cardinals from the bleachers. I even saw her one day when Stanford beat UCLA--a terrible day. She was also seen working out with the Stanford football team. Dr. Rice is a role model, especially for young women. During her time at Stanford she was loved by undergraduates and appreciated by faculty members. Dr. Rice has had a profound impact on students across our Nation. A political science major at nearby Howard University put it best, saying: She has opened the door for not only women but minorities in government and, hopefully, she [will] be a role model for women and minorities to achieve high, important positions in government. Dr. Rice is also capable of making tough decisions. Up to this point she's had mostly advisory roles in government, and she has served in that capacity with honor, dignity and unwavering dedication. It is those qualities--and her unsurpassed intellectual abilities--that prompted Forbes magazine to name her the most powerful woman in the world last year. I believe she is entitled to that acclaim. Dr. Rice is a balanced genius in her own right. And, when the Senate confirms her nomination to become Secretary of State--as I believe it will and should--she will be the boss. The Nation could not be in better hands. Dr. Rice has my complete support. I look forward to working with her in her new role. I ask unanimous consent it be possible for me at this time to introduce S. 39.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce today S. 39, the ``National Ocean Exploration Program Act'' to expand exploration and knowledge of our Nation's oceans. When I introduced this bill in the 108th Congress, Senator Hollings and Senator Inouye were original co-sponsors. Senator Hollings has left this body, but he worked closely with Senator Inouye and me on this bill and we thank him for his contributions to ocean policy. Senators Snowe and Dodd would like to be added as original co- sponsors of this bill. Senator Inouye and I introduce this legislation today in an effort to increase and coordinate research and exploration of our Nation's oceans. Alaska and Hawaii are uniquely dependent on the ocean for food, employment, recreation, and the delivery of goods. However, approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it located in the polar latitudes and the southern ocean. This legislation will advance ocean exploration and increase funding for greater research. In its final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation lead an expanded National Ocean Exploration Program. This legislation will accomplish that goal. The National Exploration Program expands ocean exploration. Through this program we will determine whether there are new marine substances with potential therapeutic benefits; study unique marine ecosystems, organisms and the geology of the world's oceans; and maximize ocean research by integrating multiple scientific disciplines in the ocean science community. The program will focus on remote ocean research and exploration. Specifically, research will be conducted on hydrothermal vents communities and seamounts. Increased research in these areas, where organisms exist in highly toxic environments, should yield significant scientific and medical breakthroughs. Decades ago I help Oscar Dyson, a great Alaska fisherman, secure a small grant to explore the North Pacific. With that grant he discovered a great number of marine species that are now considered vital to the North Pacific. It is my hope that the National Ocean Exploration Program Act will be the catalyst for that type of ocean exploration and discovery.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I introduce today S. 39, the ``National Ocean Exploration Program Act'' to expand exploration and knowledge of our Nation's oceans. When I introduced this bill in the 108th Congress, Senator Hollings and Senator Inouye were original co-sponsors. Senator Hollings has left this body, but he worked closely with Senator Inouye and me on this bill and we thank him for his contributions to ocean policy. Senators Snowe and Dodd would like to be added as original co- sponsors of this bill. Senator Inouye and I introduce this legislation today in an effort to increase and coordinate research and exploration of our Nation's oceans. Alaska and Hawaii are uniquely dependent on the ocean for food, employment, recreation, and the delivery of goods. However, approximately 95 percent of the ocean floor remains unexplored, much of it located in the polar latitudes and the southern ocean. This legislation will advance ocean exploration and increase funding for greater research. In its final report, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation lead an expanded National Ocean Exploration Program. This legislation will accomplish that goal. The National Exploration Program expands ocean exploration. Through this program we will determine whether there are new marine substances with potential therapeutic benefits; study unique marine ecosystems, organisms and the geology of the world's oceans; and maximize ocean research by integrating multiple scientific disciplines in the ocean science community. The program will focus on remote ocean research and exploration. Specifically, research will be conducted on hydrothermal vents communities and seamounts. Increased research in these areas, where organisms exist in highly toxic environments, should yield significant scientific and medical breakthroughs. Decades ago I help Oscar Dyson, a great Alaska fisherman, secure a small grant to explore the North Pacific. With that grant he discovered a great number of marine species that are now considered vital to the North Pacific. It is my hope that the National Ocean Exploration Program Act will be the catalyst for that type of ocean exploration and discovery.