Posted on: Sunday, April 3, 2005
ISLAND VOICES
|
By US Sen. Dan K. Inouye
I have had the great honor of serving the people of Hawai'i in the Congress of the United States since 1959, when Hawai'i became a state. During those 46 years, I have received hundreds of thousands of phone calls, letters and, more recently, e-mails on a wide variety of issues.
However, I have received more calls and e-mails over the past four weeks on a single issue — the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — than any other in the past 10 years. Sadly, most opposed my position on drilling for oil in ANWR. More than one-third were from the Mainland.
Before I share with you the reasons for my vote, I feel it's important to note that my position is not new. It has remained constant from the earliest days. In July 1973, I voted with 76 of my colleagues in support of building the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. In November 1991, I cast my first vote in support of drilling in ANWR.
For this reason, I found it unfortunate that there were those who would suggest that my vote was somehow part of a "deal." There was no deal involved. I do not take my responsibility that lightly. I was fully aware long before this debate that there would be many angry voices.
There were still others who suggested that we must oppose the drilling to shed our dependency on fossil fuels, and in its place, support alternative energy initiatives. I have secured millions of federal dollars to support solar, photovoltaic, geothermal, wind, ocean thermal and, most recently, hydrogen and fuel cell development. We must be a vigilant leader in these areas because of our isolation. But at this moment, alternative energy cannot replace our present requirements for oil. We simply are not there yet. Hence, it cannot be an either/or proposition.
On the day of the vote, I stood before my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, on the Senate floor and articulated my position. What follows is a condensed version of my extemporaneous statement, which appears in the March 16, 2005, Congressional Record:
"Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the many opposition letters and telegrams and e-mails I have received. I do this with mixed feelings because I am well aware that the majority of my colleagues on the Democratic side are not with me and that I may be one of the very few on our side.
"Last night, I watched a television ad put out by people who are not for the drilling. If one looked at it objectively, you got the impression that the drilling would be done in all of Alaska. It showed pristine scenes of wildlife, of plants. You could not help but feel, my God, are we going to destroy all of this?
"How large is ANWR? As the senator from Virginia stated, it is about the size of the state of South Carolina. The area that will be set aside for this drilling would be about 2,000 acres — 2,000 acres out of 19 million acres. We are not devastating the state of Alaska. We are not devastating ANWR.
"This debate has gone on for a long time. Many of the debates centered around the statements of an Indian tribe, the Gwich'in. The Gwich'in village at one time offered their lands for lease to drill and develop oil. They had no conditions to it. They said just go ahead and drill on our land, we would like to have that done. But when the test drills were made and they found that there was no oil or gas, then, suddenly, the Gwich'ins found themselves in opposition.
"There are 230 Indian tribes and tribal villages in the state of Alaska — 230. One tribe is against it, the Gwich'in tribe. For the past 15 years, I have been either chairman or vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. My mandate from my colleagues was that we should listen to the Indians. Mr. President, 229 tribes said yes, we want it. One tribe said no.
"The Gwich'ins have cousins on the Canadian side, and the Canadian side Gwich'in land is being drilled at the same time, and they seem to be happy.
"The question comes up: How many barrels will ANWR produce? The U.S. Geological Survey suggests that ANWR holds between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil, an average of about 10 billion barrels. The site will produce an additional 876,000 to 1.6 million barrels a day. This makes it the single greatest prospect for future oil production in the United States. It will produce over 36 million gallons of much-needed gasoline, jet and diesel fuel and heating oil. To put this in perspective, while ANWR can produce 1.6 million barrels a day, Texas and California each offer about 1 million daily.
"Development of ANWR alone will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources by 4 percent. Some would say: 4 percent, that's not much. Tell that to the driver who has to go to the pump today and pay that extra price. Four percent makes a big difference.
"But equally as important, I have heard many of my colleagues suggest that the war in Iraq is a war on oil. If they believe so, why don't we produce our own oil so we don't have to fight for it?
"I close by sharing with you something that happened many years ago when the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was being debated. Dire predictions were made. You are going to destroy Alaska. The caribou herd will be demolished and diminished. At the time the Congress authorized the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, there were 5,000 caribou.
Today, there are 32,000 caribou. Instead of diminishing the herd, the pipeline apparently has helped them.
"I hope my colleagues will give this opportunity to the people of Alaska. When 229 out of 230 tribes tell me they want it, I am ready to respond, sir."
Having a domestic oil supply is critical to our nation. I would much rather open drilling on 2,000 acres of a 19 million-acre refuge than to have to continue to send our young men and women to Iraq to fight a war, which many are convinced involves our nation's need for oil.
These are indeed difficult choices, which are not made without much soul-searching. While there are those who disagree, I do believe the vote I cast was in the best interest of our nation.
Sen. Dan Inouye, a Democrat, is Hawai'i's senior senator. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
