Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have introduced today the Graduation Really Achieves Dreams, GRAD, Act, which will help improve our nation's graduation rate by authorizing a program that has a proven track record--Project GRAD USA. I am joined by my colleagues, Senators Frist, Clinton, Alexander, DeWine, Hutchison and Specter.

Currently in our Nation, we graduate only 70 percent of our students from high school. In high poverty urban districts, we often graduate fewer than half that many--one in three. In rural areas, where one- third of American students are educated--only 58.8 percent of students attend colleges and

universities, compared with 68.2 percent in urban and suburban areas. The problem is especially acute in Alaska, where Alaska Natives are almost twice as likely as other students to drop out of high school.

We must provide better support and resources for our most vulnerable students. Project GRAD USA is already doing that job in 12 sites nationwide, including one in my own State of Alaska.

Project GRAD USA is a national program to increase the number of low- income and at-risk students who attend college and earn degrees. Unlike other national programs, Project GRAD USA is a comprehensive non-profit K-12 education reform program. It serves at-risk students, beginning in kindergarten, and staying with them through college, by offering research-based programs in reading, math, classroom management, social services, and college preparation. Students who qualify then receive a four-year college scholarship. Scholarships are funded by private- industry donations and foundation grants, as well as previously- appropriated Federal dollars.

In Alaska, Project GRAD established a program in the Kenai Peninsula and serves six K-12 schools and one K-10 school, reaching 600 students. Three schools serve small Alaska Native communities; three serve Russian Old Believer communities; and the seventh school serves a mixed community of Alaska Natives, Russians and other Caucasians. More than 47 percent of the students Project GRAD Kenai serves are at poverty level, and 49.2 percent of Kenai students report that a language other than English is spoken at home. Project GRAD is committed to maintaining cultural relevance in each of the schools it serves and creating individualized components developed with community leaders, teachers and families.

This legislation would provide funds so Project GRAD can continue to grow in the States where it now operates and expand its proven model elsewhere. It also requires the local sites to match federal funds it receives with local dollars and in-kind support. In this way, federal funds are leveraged to increase support for needed educational reform and enhancement.

When I visit the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, I see first hand the impact Project GRAD has made on the students in this district as well as the significant economic impact to the overall Peninsula. In the first five years of the program, over $6 million will be invested in program development and implementation and nearly $250,000 will be awarded in scholarships.

Project GRAD USA has proven its effectiveness nationwide and now serves over 133,000 students. High school graduation rates for long- term participants have increased by 85 percent, and those who have gone on to college have earned college degrees at a rate of 89 percent above the national average. These results have not gone unnoticed as President Bush and Majority Leader Frist have both strongly supported the program. Further, Fortune magazine chose GRAD as its ``charity of choice'' for 2004.

Proven education, retention and graduation initiatives aimed at our students most at-risk deserve every policy maker's attention as we aim to do the most good with limited resources. I am proud to support this legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to join me to ensure Project GRAD's continued success for our children.

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator from Washington has already taken 10 minutes off the resolution on this amendment.

But it still unbalances this time. I ask unanimous consent I have 10 minutes, equal to the Senator from Washington, off the resolution.

I have a pending request, also.

Mr. President, I don't know what all the fight is about. If the

comments are true, that they think no one will bid, why do they oppose this? I am interested in the Senator from Wisconsin and his great defense of wildlife refuges. This area we are talking about is not within a wildlife refuge. It is not wilderness. But in his State, he has three pipelines running through wildlife refuges. Wisconsin has stood aside for all that they want.

And as a matter of fact, the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, said that only Alaskans benefit from oil development. This happens to be oil development on Federal land. It is not true that only Alaskans benefit from development of our State. We happen to have a unique State in that we share the income we get from royalties on oil and natural gas that came from Prudhoe Bay where the State owns the land.

Incidentally, I want to tell my friend, the former Presidential candidate, Mr. Kerry, I take umbrage at his comment that I am guilty of unethical conduct because I am supporting the budget resolution reported by the Budget Committee. That smacks very much of something that is a subject of personal privilege, and I shall consider that later. Maybe Senator Kerry would like to come explain why he has singled me out for unethical conduct. But beyond that, I must express my amazement that my colleague from Washington has offered this amendment.

In 1980, the former Senator from Washington and my good friend, Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson wrote a letter discussing the importance of ANWR and this 1.5 million acres. He said ANWR was:

. . . crucial to the nation's attempt to achieve energy

independence. One-third of our known petroleum reserves are

in Alaska, along with an even greater proportion of our

potential reserves. Actions such as preventing even the

exploration of the Arctic Wildlife Range . . . is an ostrich-

like approach that ill serves our nation in this time of

energy crisis.

That is the former Senator from Washington. Not only does ANWR serve our important national security interests, it serves the economic interests of the State of Washington. As a matter of fact, Washington gets a great deal more out of Alaska's oil development than anyone. The economic health of the Puget Sound is tied directly to Alaska, as is illustrated by a report commissioned by the Tacoma-Pierce County and Greater Seattle Chambers of Commerce. Of particular importance is the oil production from the North Slope. Washington's refining industry purchases almost its entire crude stock from Alaska.

The report states that:

Direct impact from the refining of Alaska crude oil within

the Puget Sound region includes 1,990 jobs and $144.5 million

in labor earnings. In 2003, oil refineries in the Puget Sound

imported $2.8 billion worth of crude oil from Alaska.

Alaska oil provided 90 percent of the region's oil refinery needs. Oil development is a major contributor to the health of Washington's economy. As oil wealth in the State of Alaska increases, so does demand for Puget Sound goods and services. That is why the chambers of commerce of Washington State support ANWR. They understand that with Prudhoe Bay declining--today it only produces about 950 thousand barrels a day; it used to produce 2.1 million barrels a day--additional oil resources must be developed to ensure the continued economic viability of the Puget Sound region. The Puget Sound region has the luxury of purchasing our oil. Otherwise it would be purchasing oil from distant foreign shores.

The development of Prudhoe Bay has contributed more than $1.6 billion to the Washington economy. And ANWR alone is estimated to create over 12,000 new jobs in Washington State alone, in addition to the revenues it will generate. None of these benefits will take place if the Senator's amendment is allowed to pass. Not only are decreasing oil output and declining revenues affecting the health of Washington, its major businesses are feeling the heat, particularly the aviation industry.

The rise in fuel prices is greatly impacting Washington's aviation industry. Our airline industry has lost over $25 billion in the last 3 years. Sustained high jet fuel costs of $1.50 per gallon, which is almost three times that of 1999, continues to hamper the health of this critical industry. Every dollar per barrel the cost of oil rises costs the airline industry an additional $2 million per month. High energy prices also prevent job creation in the transportation sector. The Air Transport Association estimates that for every dollar increase in the price of fuel, they could fund almost 5,300 airline jobs. That should be worrisome to a person who represents the area of the aerospace industry of this country and wants to deny us access to this oil.

Let me speak about access to this oil. Washington consumes 17.6 million gallons of petroleum per day, including 7.3 million gallons of gasoline and $2.5 million for jet fuel. It produces no oil at all. Were it not for oil from my State, the Puget Sound region would be destitute.

Now, some people argue we should not develop ANWR because it would devastate the traditional lifestyle of Alaska's Natives. I think they do a disservice to the Alaskan Native people. They talk about the Gwich'ins. Let me be sure that everybody understands that the Gwich'ins, which the Democrats parade around this town, are from the South Slope. They are not in the North Slope. They have no traditional role in the North Slope. The only thing they share with the North Slope is the fact that the porcupine caribou herd, which comes from Canada up to the North Slope, goes through their area on up to the North Slope, and that is where they calve. But not every year. Some years they don't go. Why? Because their relatives in Canada kill too many.

The Gwich'ins hunt caribou in Canada and they can serve it commercially. For them, it is a sports animal versus a subsistence animal on our side. They have benefitted from oil production. They have provided revenues for schools, clean water, sanitation, electrical power, health clinics, roads, and Natives.

I don't think most people understand that because of the situation in terms of the Alaska Land Claims Settlement Act, when one region gets money from natural resources, it must share with the other 11 regions. The 7(i) concept is the most unique concept in America. That is why all of the Natives in Alaska have an interest in ANWR.

If the Natives of the North Slope get money--and they will--from this development, they must share that with the other 11 regions. I have worked closely with them to enact the strictest environmental standards on the planet, dealing with the developments on the North Slope.

People don't realize that the petroleum industry has been able to coexist with wildlife in the Arctic, and it really has the support of the Natives who live in that area. Thirty-three percent of unemployed Alaskans are Natives. Twenty percent of Alaskan Natives have incomes below the poverty line. Development of ANWR holds the potential to improve their situation. That is why they are in this city now trying to tell Members that they want ANWR developed.

We have been accused of trying to use strange procedures. I don't think it is strange. We had the same provision in last year and they were able to take it out. They knew they had the votes last year and they were not screaming like they are now. This year, things have changed. There has been an election.

Yes.

Mr. President, I am winding down. We have sent this item to the President to ask why we don't follow the usual procedures. President Clinton vetoed it on the request of the people on that side. We passed this in the Senate twice.

The trouble is, for 24 years we have tried to carry out commitments made by Senators Tsongas and Jackson that this area would be explored. For 24 years, there have been devices used by the other side to prevent it. But they forget even Congressman Mo Udall stated that nothing stops a future Congress from allowing exploration for these uses if they are of sufficient national importance. The question is whether they are of sufficient national importance.

Those who voted for this amendment will tell you they are voting against ANWR, but they won't tell you what they are for. Where are they going to get the oil? A vote for this amendment is a vote for the status quo.

I will use a couple more minutes off of our allotted time.

My friend Ronald Reagan used to say that ``status quo is Latin for 'the mess we are in.' '' A vote for this amendment closes our domestic resources to production. It is a vote for continuing our current policy of importing more than 60 percent of our Nation's oil. It is a vote for outsourcing more than 1.3 million American jobs a year. A vote for this amendment is a vote for increasing home heating bills and transportation costs. It is a vote to diminish our national security by relying on rogue nations, nations with unstable regimes.

I don't think there is a Senator in this Congress who would offer a bill that exports 1.3 million American jobs every year, will cost $200 billion annually by 2025, and leaves our national security vulnerable to the whims of unfriendly foreign regimes. That is what this does.

A vote for this amendment is not just a vote against ANWR; it is a vote for closing our Nation's single greatest prospect for future oil development and backing out of the promise made to Alaskans in 1980-- and all Americans--when Senators Jackson and Tsongas created section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

A vote for this amendment is a vote against the people of Washington State, who rely almost completely on Alaska for their oil for their industrial base and energy consumption.

Above all, a vote for this amendment is against Alaska Natives who overwhelmingly support development in ANWR because they know they can balance stewardship and conservation with the development. Alaska Natives would use a portion of the revenues to finance schools, water systems, and health clinics while pursuing their way of life.

Again, every Alaska Native will share in the money that is received by the North Slope people. They all share because of the bill this Congress wrote, the Alaskan Native Land Claim Settlement Act.

I thank the Chair.

I ask for 2 minutes off the resolution.

For the information of Senator Kerry, British Petroleum is currently investing over $500 million annually in Alaska and is drilling now over 100 new wells.

I hope my colleagues consider this amendment. What I really want to ask, finally, is to vote no. I have been fighting now for 24 years to get Congress to keep its word. In a fight such as this, the Senator really learns and realizes who his true friends are. I know those who vote against this amendment are doing so because it is the right thing to do for the country. But I count you among those of us from the World War II generation who understood that oil is ammunition and understand what it means to keep a promise. And I shall not forget it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 16, 2005, at 4:30 p.m. to receive a classified briefing regarding improvised explosive devices (IEDS).

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Will the Senator yield?

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.

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

Will the Senator yield there?

I am happy to charge it against my time.

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

I am asking the Senator a question.

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?

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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

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

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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)).