July 12, 1973
Page 23611
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Alaskan pipeline has raised a purported conflict between the values of preserving our environment and increasing our energy supplies.
The legislation before the Senate today – S. 1081, the Federal Lands Right-of-Way Act of 1973 – would merely allow the Secretary of the Interior to grant rights-of-way over Federal lands large enough to accommodate modern pipelines. By its own terms, it does not dispose of the question of pipeline construction. If S. 1081 is enacted in its present form, the Alaskan pipeline issue would remain at a standoff : The Secretary of the Interior would stand ready to grant a permit for construction of the pipeline across Alaska from the North Slope oil fields to the sea, but environmental groups would possibly delay construction for years by contesting its legality under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The amendment of Senators MONDALE and BAYH, which I cosponsor, would lead to a solution of this impasse next year – a solution in the form of a congressional decision on whether economic and environmental considerations point toward building the pipeline through Alaska, with oil supplies to the U.S. west coast carried by ocean tanker from Valdez, or completely overland through Canada, direct to the U.S. Midwest. To make that choice now is unnecessary and unwise because we do not have enough information to make an evaluation of the relative economic and environmental costs and benefits of the Alaskan route, as opposed to the Canadian route. And to pass S. 1081 without the Mondale-Bayh amendment would be to forego a choice – and face years more of delay in the delivery of Alaskan oil.
I am gratified that today there is no serious dispute over the principle that we must preserve the quality of our environment. When I first arrived in the Senate in 1959, we all needed educating about the need to preserve our natural resources and environment. Since then we have learned that it is important to the city dweller that the streams outside his town be clear and free; that it is important to the farmer that the air in the town or city where he markets his goods and buys his supplies be healthful and pure; and that it is important to give all Americans a sense of pride and comfort in the knowledge that the natural beauty of our land is preserved for our enrichment, for our children's wonderment. and for the well-being of future generations.
Decisions about the environment have now shifted to a critical economic plane. To agree that it is important to preserve our environment merely sets the stage for weighing these environmental values against other of our needs – our safety, security, and economic well-being. And it is in this context of balancing these competing interests that we must make a decision about alternative routes for a pipeline to transport oil and natural gas from the cold north slopes of Alaska to the homes, cars, and factories of the lower 48 States.
Some have said, Mr. President, that the Alaskan and Canadian alternatives have already been subjected to thorough analysis. But, on examination, these analyses raise as many questions as they answer. And, in the present discussion, there appears to be agreement only that there are the two alternatives that should be given serious consideration.
Supporters of the Alaskan route argue that the environmental damage of the pipeline would be minimized, while critics contend that the active earthquake belt which the pipeline would cross would pose unacceptable hazards of pipeline breakage and attendant oil spills. Critics also contend that shipping the oil by sea from the Alaskan coast would create the danger of disastrous marine oil spills, and the certainty of low-level oil pollution of the ocean and coastline. The evidence developed so far about the Canadian alternative suggests that it would be less costly to the environment, since it would avoid the dangers of marine pollution and earthquakes. But a thorough analysis of the Canadian possibility has not yet been attempted.
On environmental grounds alone, Mr. President, it is not clear which of the two routes is preferable. And against an unclear environmental evaluation, we must weigh even more uncertain economic considerations. A pipeline through Alaska would provide oil, via the sea, to our west coast; a pipeline through Canada would direct oil to the Midwest as well as to the Western States. Which would cost more? Which would be built more quickly? Which route would provide the best allocation of oil supplies? Would the Canadian Government permit a Canadian route under conditions acceptable to us? None of these questions has been answered satisfactorily.
The Mondale-Bayh amendment provides us with a vehicle for developing the comparative information needed to judge the Alaskan and Canadian options. It directs the Secretary of State to begin negotiations with Canada about the Canadian route, and report the results to Congress within 8 months. It mandates a comparative study by the National Science Foundation of the environmental, economic, and national security impact of the Alaskan and Canadian routes, also to be completed within 8 months, under today's modification. And by calling for Interior Committee reports of pipeline legislation 1 month later, and passage of the legislation 2 months after that, it would lead to a prompt final decision by Congress on the pipeline issue – after a total of 11 months.
This course, therefore, provides the best balance between two competing requirements: The requirement that we increase our oil supplies as soon as possible, and the requirement that we acquire these new supplies in the safest and most economical way available. For this reason, I urge adoption of the Mondale-Bayh amendment.