THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display

[Page: S8373]  GPO's PDF
---

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. I very much appreciate the senior Member of this body, the President pro tempore, who is presiding at this time, for giving me the opportunity to advise my colleagues of the seriousness of the energy crisis in this county. I think we would all agree that the matter of energy is something we take a good deal for granted. We take for granted that America has been blessed with an affordable, plentiful, reliable supply of energy which pretty much provides us with a standard of living second to none. But it is something, again, that is there. We take it for granted. And we look forward to it continuing.

   We have had some attention given to the crisis out in California, but for the most part it has not hit the majority of Americans. I think it is fair to say from the following information we have seen there is a growing concern that perhaps what happened in California could spread to other parts of the country.

   As far as our national security is concerned, we have had a lot of discussion; we have seen communiques; we have seen articles concerning the national security of our country tied into energy simply because we have increased our imports of crude oil into this country from about 37 percent in 1973 to over 56 percent at this time.

   As a consequence, we have become more beholden to OPEC and, the OPEC cartel, and the OPEC cartel has set a price structure of $22 to $28 and reduced supply. It is pretty much assumed now we are going to be in a period of increased dependence on imported oil from OPEC in the Middle East for the increasing timeframe in the future until we find another alternative to crude oil, which is not likely to occur.

   In addition, we have economic security which, of course, is fostered by

[Page: S8374]  GPO's PDF

   As we look at our standard of living, our plentiful supply of energy, the affordability, and the recognition that some of this is in question, I think we have to look at the reality associated with the actions being contemplated in this body and the House of Representatives. It is our understanding that the House of Representatives will be addressing an energy bill this week.

   The reason things are different this time is we have brought together a set of circumstances which I have highlighted on previous occasions, but previously it was different. We have had a series of situations highlighted by what is happening in California. We have seen an increased dependence on foreign oil, as I have indicated, of 56 percent. The Department of Energy indicates that will increase to 64, 65, 66 percent by the year 2010.

   What is different about oil compared with our other sources of energy? America and the world move on oil. We have other sources of energy for electricity, including coal, natural gas, wind, hydro. But we use oil. As we look at our increased dependence on foreign oil, we recognize it affects our national security. Yet we are becoming more and more subject to control by the Middle East. We have not had any nuclear plants licensed in over 10 years in this country; nuclear is about 20 percent of our energy. We have seen gas prices soar from $2.16 to over $10 and then come down again, but nevertheless we have seen a dramatic increase at a time when we are using natural gas at a faster rate than we are finding new gas reserves. We have not seen a new oil refinery in this country in almost 20 years. We have not seen a coal-fired plant built in the last 10 years. We find suddenly we do not have adequate transmission; the transmission lines are overloaded, both natural gas and electricity. So things are different now.

   I fear as we pursue an energy bill in the Senate, we are going to end up where we were the last time we attempted to make some subjective corrections. I think it is important to recognize this in the Energy Committee where most of this legislation resides. In 1992, we passed a number of very positive, meaningful bills out of committee to increase domestic production, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to expedite infrastructure, develop alternative fuels, encourage renewable fuel development, promote conservation, and increase funding for the LIHEAP program which provides assistance for those with low income.

   My point is we passed a meaningful bill but what we enacted was virtually nothing: Double flush toilets and a left turn on a red light. That is what we passed.

   If we pursue an energy bill this time, it appears to me we are pursuing much of the same that we passed in committee but are not passing into law simply because of a concern by well-meaning environmental groups that there is something wrong with increasing supply. We will have to increase supply.

   I also point out job security. This is a jobs issue in the United States. It was interesting to hear the debate the other day in the House of Representatives. The Teamsters and the Democratic caucus had an opportunity to express the merits of increased supply.

   As a consequence of the points I made relative to the fact that things are different, yet we are pursuing the same old alternatives, we are putting emphasis on renewal, putting emphasis on alternatives, placing emphasis on wind power and solar power, but we are not really increasing supply as the demand has increased.

   This chart demonstrates what is happening. The burden of increasing energy bills hurts most those families who can afford it the least. Almost 14 percent of the family budget is spent on energy for families earning less than $15,000. The point is obvious and most convincing: Runaway energy rates are costing Americans a great deal of money in their households, as well as costing jobs.

   We have reviews from coast to coast. American working families have seen more than 400,000 jobs basically disappear since the first of the year. A large reason for that, a significant reason, is the cost of energy. In June alone, 114,000 jobs were lost. Most of those were good-paying jobs, manufacturing jobs, for so many families. We saw Northwest Airlines lose 2,000 jobs; International Paper, 3,000 jobs; aluminum plants in the Northwest find it more profitable to sell electricity than make aluminum; Miller Brewing Company found high energy costs made it more economic to brew beer in Dallas and ship it to California instead of brewing it there in the first place. In Delaware last week, Du Pont indicated it was relieving its workforce by some 1,500, and possibly up to 5,000, jobs and another 1,500 contract jobs. The reason? Increased energy costs.

   The problem is widespread: 54 companies had mass layoffs in Wisconsin in May, a significant portion due to high energy costs; Oregon alone has had 7,000 employees laid off since last summer. State officials blame rising energy and fuel costs. California blackouts have cost 135,000 jobs in California. Unless we turn this around, the economic doom of a few short years ago will turn into a prolonged bust. The reason for this is the demand has increased but we have not increased the supply.

   As I indicated, the emphasis has been on renewables and alternatives. We spent some $6 billion, but they still account for less than 4 percent of the total energy mix. That includes hydro as well. As we look at potential solutions, there are some at hand. That is the President's comprehensive, balanced natural energy plan. The plan includes more than 100 specific recommendations to increase conservation, improve energy, and domestic supplies of energy as well. This plan will directly create more than 1.5 million new jobs. We need these jobs in the United States today.

   The direct benefits speak for themselves, but the indirect benefits will be immeasurable. By easing energy costs, returning stability and reliability to our energy grid, businesses can again look forward to growth, and that means jobs. Through incentives to promote new energy production, the energy plan will help to ensure meeting our growing demand. New energy supplies mean new jobs. They mean the stability of existing jobs. The plan places an emphasis on American ingenuity and American technology.

   We are using our best and brightest to craft solutions to these energy problems. It will take hard work. It will take new thinking and new jobs as well.

   The plan also encourages development of resources that exist here at home, and that includes the safe exploration for energy under a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

   It is interesting to see some of the propaganda on this issue. I have here a page from Rollcall. It is sponsored by a number of the environmental groups--American Rivers, Defenders of Wildlife. It is rather interesting because what it says is what, in effect, we did in 1992. It says:

   Let's Promote Clean Energy

   A responsible bill would encourage the use of clean energy and set significantly higher efficiency standards for motor vehicles to reduce global warming pollution. Clean and renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal. .....

   That is where we were in 1992. Surely we want this technology. But it simply is not here yet. It now constitutes less than 4 percent of our energy supply.

   This is part of the problem when we listen to our well-meaning friends who simply propose a clean energy bill. They do not say how we are really going to increase the supply. We have to dramatically increase the supply.

   Rollcall says:

   Let's Reduce Pollution

   We could significantly cut emissions of global warming pollutants by setting stronger fuel economy standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks.

[Page: S8375]  GPO's PDF

   They talk about 40 miles per gallon. But they do not talk about the preference of Americans to buy automobiles. One of the interesting things in this country is that the 10 most fuel -efficient automobiles on the market today constitute exactly 1.5 percent of the automobile sales.

   They also say:

   Let's Improve Energy Efficiency

   The cleanest, cheapest, quickest way to meet our energy needs is to improve energy efficiency. To help consumers, let's have an energy bill that dramatically increases the fuel economy of our vehicles. .....

   That is fine, but what does it do to increase supply? We have hydro; we have nuclear, but it does not say anything about increasing nuclear energy in this country, which is clean.

   We are going to fall into the same trap we did in 1992. We are going to go through a lengthy process here, but we are not going to produce any more energy. One of the things that bothers me a little bit is the misleading statement in this particular ad. It says:

   The bill would open up pristine and ecologically fragile lands like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Rocky Mountain Front to oil drilling. There's no excuse for sacrificing these and other national treasures and the wildlife that depends on them. .....

   They further say:

   The economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge would meet only six months of our nation's needs, and wouldn't start reaching us for ten years.

   Both those statements are absolutely false. To suggest it would be a 6-month supply would be to assume that there would be no other energy produced in the United States or imported

   into the United States for a 6-month period.

   If you want to turn it around, you say: Therefore we are not going to allow any development to occur in Alaska. Therefore the United States will be short a 6-month supply.

   It is used over and over again. It is a standard environmental pitch. It says it would take 10 years. It would not take 10 years. The Department of Energy and Department of Interior have indicated they would have oil on line in 3.5 years, if indeed the oil is there in the abundance it has to be.

   In conclusion, I think we should note a couple of facts that are very real. We are looking at jobs in this country. Opening ANWR would create about 700,000 new jobs nationwide, associated with the development of ANWR if, indeed, it carries the reserves that we anticipate.

   We anticipate somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels of oil. That would equal what we would import from Saudi Arabia over a 30-year period of time.

   Here at home we have this opportunity. We are not going to drill our way out of this crisis, but we can substantially relieve our dependence.

   The other point I want to make is about national security. We are becoming more and more dependent on countries such as Iraq where we enforce the no-fly zones. Sadam attempted to shoot down our U-2 just last week. We buy a million barrels of oil from Iraq, and what do we do with the oil? We put it in our planes and go bomb him, take out his targets. He develops a missile capability and aims it at our ally, Israel. I don't think that is the best foreign policy.

   If you look at the ANWR chart, you get a different view of the realities. And the reality is there is a huge area called ANWR. It is a relatively significant portion of dedicated wilderness: 8.5 million acres are in wilderness, 9 million already in refuge, and 1.5 million acres are the 1002 area that we are considering opening. There is no scientific evidence that says we cannot do it safely.

   What about refuges? We do all kinds of development in refuges. We have 30 refuges all over the country where we drill for oil and gas. These are the States that have them. We have the specific refuges here in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, New Mexico, Montana, Mississippi, Alaska, California. What is so different about ANWR?

   Is there a reason we cannot use this technology in ANWR? Refuges are open to exploration for minerals and oil and gas as well. It is easy to confuse a refuge with a wilderness or with a park, but we do not allow any motorized access in wildernesses and parks. Each is unique to its own specific purpose. The balanced use of Federal land is commonplace in a refuge. It is the norm. So many people misunderstand that.

   In more than 30 Federal refuges from coast to coast we safely explore for mineral resources. There are over 400 wells in Louisiana alone, so what is different about ANWR?

   By definition, refuges are balanced places where the environment is always protected and resources are explored only where the resource exists. ANWR is a refuge and it is no different. To suggest we cannot do it safely is not proven by any scientific evidence. This is an emotional argument brought about by the environmental community to generate revenue and dollars.

   Let me conclude with a couple of references because my time is almost up. We have new technology in ANWR. The new technology is the directional drilling which lends itself very much to 3D seismic. The old way you used to drill was to go straight down. If you hit it, you were lucky. This is the new systematic 3D seismic which allows you to get into the pockets of oil. It is estimated by the technologists, today if we were going to drill under this cap, we could come out at gate 8 at Reagan Airport. This technology has advanced that much.

   We have the toughest environmental standards here in the world. Prudhoe Bay is the finest oilfield in the world even though it is 30-year-old technology.

   What is Prudhoe Bay? Prudhoe Bay has produced its thirteen-millionth barrel of oil. It was supposed to only have 10 million barrels. My point is, as we look at the prospects for ANWR, the prospects for a major discovery according to the geologists is quite good, with an estimate of 5.6 to 16 billion. If it is 10 billion, it would be as big as Prudhoe Bay which has supplied this Nation with 20 percent of its crude oil for the last 20 years. Exploration would be limited to a sliver of land, roughly 2,000 acres.

   We have ice roads, which is new technology, as the chart will show. This is the directional drilling. There are the ice roads. We build these out of water. Some people say there is no water in the North Slope. That is ridiculous. You build snow fences, generate snow, you can drill down below permafrost and there is plenty of water, or you can take the salt water and use it through a desalination process, which is quite common.

   This advanced technology makes the footprint manageable. A 2,000 acre-foot would average five average family farms. Caribou do not calve in the 1002 area. They did not this year or the last 2 years. Here is a picture of the calving area. The environmental arguments just do not support any of these generalizations.

   There is an abundance of drilling on the Canadian side. There is a caribou herd. Here is the information on the charts. It shows where Anderson Exploration conducted seismic studies. There are lease sales and echo plan areas all over the Canadian side. Here is the range of the Porcupine caribou herd, and here is the drilling that is going on. Of course, here is Alaska and here is Canada.

   My point is to suggest that while the Canadians object to our initiating activity, they have a very aggressive ongoing program. Obviously, they look at themselves as competitors with Alaska supplying the United States with oil and gas.

   Exploration and development of ANWR is supported by Alaskans. Alaskans are proud and protective of the environment. Alaska has the best oversight in the world in the development of oil and gas. Prudhoe Bay is required to adhere to State law as well as Federal law. We care about where we get our oil. If we look at the area of Saudi Arabia and OPEC nations, we don't seem to give any consideration on how it is produced and whether it is done environmentally and in a compatible manner.

   Alaskans are proud and protective of the environment, and we are willing to do our part to end the energy crisis. There is no NIMBY in my State; that is, ``Not in my backyard.'' Seventy-five percent of all Alaskans favor exploration. The Alaskans who live there--the people who must breathe the air, drink the water, and make the decisions about their communities--support exploration. It is absolutely unfair to deny them the same kind of opportunity everyone else enjoys in this country.

[Page: 
S8376]  GPO's PDF

   Kaktovik is a small village in ANWR in the 1002 area. Environmentalists say there is nothing there, that it is the Serengeti of the north. It is a village of about 250 people. There is a physician there, a small school, and a general store. They are real people.

   Do not be misled by the suggestion that somehow we don't have the capability and we cannot do it safely. We can. Why not do it for American jobs?

   This issue reaches a critical mass this week as Congress finally--and I emphasize ``finally''--begins to work on a comprehensive energy bill. I urge my colleagues both here and in the other body to recognize that this is a fork in the road, and our efforts can have great impact for the American worker. Do we continue down the path of instability and rising energy costs--a path that finds more American families with pink slips and uncertain futures--or do we head down a path for job creation based on solid science and growth?

   With a comprehensive, balanced national energy strategy in place, we can look forward to reliable, affordable, and plentiful energy that has fueled this economy in the past and that will power a bright future. I hope that is the choice because we cannot afford to make the mistakes we made in 1992.

   I will not stand by in this body and allow us to pass an energy bill that does not increase the supply of energy in this country. It simply is unconscionable. That is apparently where we are headed, to some degree.

   I think it is important that we recognize what is going on in the House of Representatives and those in opposition who are suggesting alternative renewables with no increased supply, and recognize that we have a serious concern over the loss of jobs in this country.

   I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article from the Chattanooga Times by Lee Anderson who has been to ANWR and has some interesting things to say about it.

   There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   President George W. Bush wants to help head off our future energy problems by drilling for oil in the far, far north of Alaska, in an area called the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

   Environmentalists and liberals are yelling, ``Over our dead bodies.'' And now that the Democrats control the United States Senate, they think they will win. But would you rather continue to rely on Iraq's Saddam Hussein and a host of other foreign nations for American oil?

   There are some facts about Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that sensible people should look at rationally--though many people won't do that.

   In the first place, the proposed drilling site is so far away and in such a desolate, cold and forbidding area that almost no one will ever see it.

   Second, it's not far from Prudhoe Bay, where current oil production is proceeding without serious problems.

   But perhaps most important is the fact that the proposed oil production would affect very little land. Consider:

   Alaska spreads over 615,230 square miles; already has 125 million acres in national parks, preserves and wildlife refuges.

   The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of 19 million acres. But the area proposed for drilling is only 1.5 million acres. And of that, only about 2,000 acres--about twice the size of Chattanooga's Lovell Field--would be used.

   Will reason prevail and bring oil production? Probably not soon.

   Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield any remaining time to the Senator from Wyoming. I thank the Chair for his attention.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

   Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.

   I appreciate the comments of my friend from Alaska. Certainly that issue is important to all of us. We will be dealing with it soon.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Contents Display