[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 154 (Thursday, November 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11584-S11587]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not think there is any question
about the condition of this country. We are clearly a nation at war. As
we look at the instability, the uncertainty of regions of the world,
regions where many of the nations that want to destroy Israel and the
U.S. reside, the reality is these particular areas of the world are
ones on which we are growing more dependent all the time.
It is no secret to the occupant of the chair that we are now 57
percent dependent on imported oil. However, during the 1970s, we were
about 34 percent dependent on oil. Some remember the inconvenience of
the gas lines around the block. This was at a time of conflict in the
Mideast, the Yom Kippur War. Americans were outraged. They were
indignant. How could it possibly happen in our Nation that we should be
so inconvenienced?
So there we were, in the 1970s, 33 percent dependent; today we 57
percent dependent, and the Department of Energy indicates by the year
2010 we are going to be somewhere in the area of 66 percent dependent.
We are, in my opinion, held hostage by the same interests that seek
to destroy and uproot Israel. Through our energy policies of
dependence, we have
[[Page S11585]]
tipped the scales and given tremendous power to extremists in the
Mideast. We are only making Iran, Iraq, and Libya, perhaps, stronger.
Is that our wish?
What happens if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fails? There is almost a
parallel occurring in that country between what happened in Iran 30
years ago with the fall of the Shah. When it occurred, the Shah was one
of America's greatest allies. What happened was his regime came down as
a consequence of corruption, a concentration of too much wealth in too
few hands. That situation is very much evident in Saudi Arabia today.
I might add, if we look to bin Laden followers, a number of them have
come from Saudi Arabia. As we examine the background of those
responsible for the aircraft that went into the Pentagon and the Trade
Centers, we find they have connections. Some are actually from Saudi
Arabia.
Now, I am not condemning Saudi Arabia by any means. I am simply
drawing a comparison. As our dependence on imported oil increases, we
focus more on Saudi Arabia because that is where the significant supply
of petroleum in the world exists. We are becoming more vulnerable as
their regime becomes more unstable.
Furthermore, we are importing a million barrels of oil a day from
Iraq. Now, what is the uniqueness of Iraq? We happen to enforce a no-
fly zone over Iraq. We are putting our men's and women's lives at stake
to ensure that Iraq stays within the constraints of the U.N. sanctions.
Yet we know they have moved beyond those constraints, that they are
selling oil outside the U.N. oversight, illegally in that sense.
So here we are, we are taking their oil and we are enforcing a no-fly
zone over Iraq. We put the oil in our aircraft and then we go and
enforce that no-fly zone by taking out some of their targets. We almost
had one of our intercepter aircraft shot down a few weeks ago. What
does Saddam Hussein do with the money? He pays his Republican Guards to
keep him alive and develops missile capability with biological warheads
aimed at our ally, Israel.
Is this part of our foreign policy or is it because we have no other
choice than to depend on Iraq for a certain amount of our imported oil?
I am not suggesting we might funnel some of the money for terrorist
attacks to keep Saddam Hussein in charge, but one has to wonder what
his future holds. We must address this dependence with a new sense of
urgency, a new sense of purpose. To ensure our energy security, we must
put in place solutions that begin and end at home. In my opinion, the
sooner the better.
There are tremendous resources and ingenuity in this country. Our
balanced, bipartisan energy plan puts them to work. It adjusts fuel
economy standards; encourages conservation, provides incentives for the
development of advanced newer, cleaner alternative fuels, and
encourages the use of our own energy supplies.
I know the occupant of the chair would be disappointed if I didn't
bring up the issue of ANWR and what kind of a contribution this can
make. Clearly, we can open this area safely, effectively, and quickly.
What does it hold? Somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels--enough
oil to replace what we would import from Saudi Arabia in a 30-year
period of time. All the economic benefits are there. When I say
``employment,'' perhaps 200,000 jobs.
There is the potential of revenue to the Federal Government from
lease sales amounting to about $2.6 billion. This is a stimulus. It
would not cost the Federal Government one red cent.
Our President has said energy is one of our two key components to a
strong stimulus package necessary to get this economy growing again,
somewhat like the old Lee Iacocca ad. If you can find a better economic
stimulus that adds jobs to our economy, billions to our gross national
product, and will not cost the taxpayer one red cent, go buy it.
The problem is reluctance in this body. The House has done its job
and passed H.R. 4. The Democratic leader has not seen fit to bring this
bill or schedule this bill before this body. Apparently, there is no
indication from him as to his intentions. It appears he shut the door
on the Energy Committee actions. I happen to be ranking member. We have
not had markup on any bill or any action, with the exception of
reporting out a nomination or two, for well over a month. The
Democratic leader has basically shut down the Energy Committee and the
process associated with the authorization which is the duty of the
authorizing committees.
Evidently, the writing of the bill is underway, independently, with
very little input, if any, from the other side. Republican interests
will not be heard. We cannot share with our Democratic colleagues our
input.
The President has said the Senate must act. As I indicated, the House
has done its job. It is certainly not in the national interest to treat
this issue for what it is, a critical component of national security.
Our Achilles' heel in this war is our dependence on foreign oil. Bin
Laden knows it; Saddam Hussein knows it. But the United States does not
seem to know it is, to our immense discredit. How could we not know?
Didn't we recognize on September 11 the significance that much of the
terrorist activity is funded by oil? If we do not recognize it soon,
God help us.
In my few remaining minutes I want to enlighten my colleagues on the
significance of what has occurred over an extended period of time
relative to public opinion on this matter. We have heard from our
President on four occasions, specifically saying this country must have
an energy plan that encourages conservation and encourages exploration.
He says: I want the Congress to know there is more to helping our
economy grow than tax relief. One of the major components is an energy
plan.
He goes on to say on another occasion when the bill has passed the
House of Representatives: They have done their job. He wants the Senate
to do its job.
On October 17, he asked Congress to act on an energy bill the House
of Representatives passed in August. On October 14, there are two other
aspects to a good, strong stimulus package. One is an energy bill.
October 31, our Nation needs an energy plan.
I don't know who is listening around here. I am certainly listening.
It is unfortunate that the Democratic leader evidently is not listening
to the President. I don't understand this political momentum. Why can't
we do as the House and have an open discussion on the merits of this
energy bill as proposed? Where is the energy bill? We introduced a bill
in February, about 304 pages. The only thing on which anybody seemed to
want to focus was the two or three pages of ANWR, opening up this area.
This has become a cash cow for the extreme environmental community.
Make no mistake; they are milking it for all it is worth. It is an
issue that is thousands of miles away from the American people. It is
an issue filled with emotion. They say the polar bear is endangered,
but they will not say you cannot take the polar bear--they are marine
mammals--from the United States, and that includes from my State of
Alaska. They are protected. You can go to Canada and take them for
trophies, or go to Russia, but you cannot in the United States.
They say somehow the Gwich' in people, in their dependence on the
caribou, are somehow in jeopardy. I will read for the Record from the
Patroleum News: ``Gwich' in, Ensign link up in new McKenzie Delta
Drilling Company,'' September 30:
A new Native-controlled oil and gas drilling company has
been formed to provide oilfield services in a land claims
area of the Mackenzie Delta that is is seen as a likely route
for any Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Gwich'in Oilfield Services, 51 percent owned by Gwich'in
Development Corp. of Inuvik, Northwest Territories, and 49
percent by Calgary-based Ensign Drilling, is expecting to
start operations this winter.
The Gwich'in settlement area covers 22,242 square miles and
is governed by the Gwich'in Tribal Council.
Gwich'in Development Corp., wholly owned by the tribal
council, has a mission to build an investment portfolio that
offers business opportunities, employment and training to
Gwich'in residents.
Tom Connors, chief executive officer of the corporation,
said Sept. 10 that the deal with Ensign gives the community a
chance to participate in the development of oil and gas
resources.
Ensign president Selby Porter said his company's experience
and equipment make it the right choice to work with the
Gwich'in people.
The development of a local work force and infrastructure is
key to the continued development of oil and gas resources of
the Arctic region of Canada,'' he said.
[[Page S11586]]
Formation of the new company was announced Sept. 6.
About 80 percent of the Gwich'in people live in Canada. Why is it OK
for the Gwich'in people in Canada to go ahead and develop their land
and somehow the Gwich'ins who live in Alaska and are funded by the
Sierra Club and various other environmental groups in opposition are
opposed? Obviously, there is some skulduggery associated with this.
The other issue is relative to the base of support. We have seen the
President's statements in favor of opening ANWR. Secretary of Interior
Gale Norton, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Labor
Chao, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Principi have all spoken at
more than one event. Yet we have had press conferences with the
American Legion, all the veterans organizations, including the Veterans
of Foreign Wars. The AMVETS, Catholic War Veterans, and Vietnam
veterans have all spoken in favor. It is interesting to hear their
point of view. It is enlightening. They say they have fought wars on
foreign soil. They have fought wars over oil in the Persian Gulf
conflict where, obviously, we stopped Saddam Hussein from going into
Kuwait, and his objective was to go into Saudi Arabia and take over the
oil.
I am reminded of remarks made in this Chamber by Senator Mark
Hatfield from Oregon. He indicated on more than one occasion he would
vote for opening up ANWR any day rather than send other American men
and women over on foreign soil to fight a war over oil.
This is the theme of America's veterans. They say the national
security of this Nation is at risk because of our increased dependence
on oil. What can we do about it? What we can do about it is increase
domestic production. We are not going to relieve our dependence
totally, but we will reduce it substantially.
The intent of the Senate, if it votes to authorize the opening of
this area, is to send a message to the Mideast that we mean business
about reducing our dependence. You are going to see a change in the
OPEC structure, where they are going to be more sensitive to the
significance of what the United States states when we say we are going
to reduce our dependence on imports.
I suggest they are going to increase production. When they increase
production, what does that mean? It means the price goes down. We know,
as a consequence of terrorist activities, people are not flying, we do
not have the same utilization of gasoline, and we have a temporary
decline in price. But that is only temporary because what we saw OPEC
do the other day was cut production another 1.5 million barrels. They
know we are addicted to their oil. As a consequence, they are playing
it for all it is worth.
As to organized labor, we have the Teamsters, maritime unions,
seafarers unions, operating engineers, plumbers, pipefitters,
carpenters and joiners--I could go on with this list--because this is a
jobs issue.
Mr. President, as you know very well, we have a very soft economy. We
are in a recession. This is a jobs issue--several hundred thousand jobs
in every State.
What are we going to do? We are going to build more ships. We will
build them in U.S. yards because those ships that move Alaskan oil,
under law, have to be U.S. flagged vessels, built in U.S. yards with
U.S. crews. This is shipbuilding, gulf shipbuilding and west coast. It
is a big jobs issue.
As we debate the stimulus package, I challenge any Member of this
body to tell me a better stimulus than opening up ANWR. Why do I say
that? Because it is a jobs issue. It is going to create a couple of
hundred thousand jobs. It is going to create about $2.6 billion in
Federal lease sales when the Federal Government puts up those leases.
Where will that go? Into the Treasury. It will help offset some of the
costs associated with security and terrorism activities. And it is not
going to cost the taxpayer one red cent. You tell me anything else in
that stimulus package that fits that category. There isn't any. That is
why organized labor is for it.
We have senior citizens; 60-Plus held a press conference the day
before yesterday. The Hispanic community, the Latin-American Management
Association and Latino coalition, the United States-Mexico Chamber of
Commerce, they had a press conference this morning. American business
groups: The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, National Black Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Pan Asian Chamber of
Commerce, the American Women's Economic Development, the Alliance For
Energy--it goes on and on and on.
Why is that message not coming through to this body? I can only
assume there are several Members on the other side who do not want to
vote on this issue. Why don't they want to vote on the issue? Perhaps
they made commitments to extreme environmental groups. I don't know.
In any event, we are here at a stage where we are late in the
session. The House has taken on its responsibility totally, passing
H.R. 4. We have implored the Democratic leader to bring this matter up,
let us vote on it, let us debate it, and let us offer amendments. We do
not even get an answer.
I am putting this body on notice. If we do not get an answer from the
Democratic leader--this is not a threat, this is a reality--we will put
this on the stimulus bill and we will vote on it. I want everybody to
understand there is going to be a vote on this floor, on this issue, on
an energy bill that will contain ANWR, before we get out of here.
Some Members have threatened a filibuster. I cannot understand--while
it is everybody's right to do as they see fit--why anybody would
consider filibustering an issue as important as this, in the national
security interests of our Nation. I don't think we have ever had that,
traditionally, in this body. We should address this issue on its
merits, not proceed to activities associated with the threat of a
filibuster.
I encourage Members to reflect a little bit about just what the folks
back home will read into that kind of a vote. They will read the
filibuster has been on a procedural motion, not on the merits of the
issue. They will read it is in defiance of the veterans who have spoken
time and time again, in defiance of the position of organized labor, in
defiance of the position of our President.
I don't know whether there is an effort to ensure the President does
not win on this issue. Is that what we are talking about? I hope that
is not the case.
But to have this matter ignored, to have this matter taken away from
the committee of jurisdiction by the Democratic leader at least
warrants an explanation, and we cannot seem to get an explanation. The
Democratic leader is a good friend of mine. We have had some
conversations. He has been very responsive to hearing me out. But now
it is time we had an opportunity to hear him out because he has simply
ignored this. I want to tell the Democratic leader the pressure is
going to become more intense. There is no reason this issue should not
be addressed in an expeditious manner.
I noted in the Boston Herald an article. I ask unanimous consent it
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Boston Herald, Nov. 6, 2001]
Energy a Security Issue
President Bush urged Congress to get an energy bill on his
desk before it adjourns for the year, making the case that a
sound energy policy is vital to national security.
Speaking to business leaders recently, the president
observed, ``It's in our national interest that we develop
more energy supplies at home.'' And Interior Secretary Gale
Norton added, ``Every day the United States imports 700,000
barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein.''
The House has passed an energy bill which would allow
drilling in portions of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. But Senate Democrats have promised the environmental
lobby that they will block ANWR development, and
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has threatened to lead a
filibuster.
That made little sense before Sept. 11, and even less since
then. In the past 30 years, America has become dangerously
dependent on foreign oil. It's estimated ANWR contains
between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil. Roughly 11
billion barrels would be the equivalent of 20 years of
imports from Saudi Arabia. And only a miniscule part of
ANWR's 19 million acres would be used.
America will never again be energy self-sufficient. But
every barrel this nation doesn't have to import from the
Middle East enhances national security. Planes and tanks
don't run on recycled environmentalist cliches.
[[Page S11587]]
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The article it supports the opening of ANWR and
suggests if there wasn't a reason before September 11, there is
certainly an even better reason afterward. It mentioned Senator Kerry,
who is opposed to this legislation. It indicates in general terms it
should be supported because it is in the national interests of the
country.
Lest there be any mistaken innuendoes, saying we don't need, really,
to open up the ANWR area because there are other areas, that we can
look to our friends in Canada--let's just reflect on what Prime
Minister Jean Chretien said on November 6. He took a swing at the
United States in an interesting way, over soft wood policies. He told
the House of Commons:
If the Americans want free trade in oil and natural gas,
they should also have free trade in lumber.
He further says:
If they were not to have oil and gas from Canada, then they
will need wood to heat their homes.
This is the Prime Minister saying, in effect, don't just rely on an
unlimited supply of resources from Canada, there has to be two-way
trade.
I will close by outlining the significance of the economic stimulus
associated with this single issue. The Department of Labor
Massachusetts Survey indicates jobs, direct, 250,000; the Wharton
Econometrics Institute at the University of Pennsylvania lists the
total employment, indirect, at 735,000 jobs associated with the
development of ANWR; jobs in 50 States, 80,000 in California, 48,000 in
New York.
We do not make valves. We do not make pipe or welding rod. These
things are all going to be made in the United States. Labor is going to
come up. We are looking at 200,000 jobs at a minimum, direct.
Federal benefits of opening up ANWR will add up to $3.2 billion. That
is another estimate, in lease sales to the Federal Treasury, and if the
oil is produced we are talking about billions more in royalties. It is
estimated that ANWR oil has a potential value upwards of $300 billion.
That is from the Energy Information Administration. That is $300
billion we do not have to spend overseas. That is $300 billion that
will travel through the economy, being taxed here in America. As I
indicated, the Jones Act mandates the oil move in U.S.-flag vessels.
Nineteen new supertankers will be needed at a cost of about $200
million. What will that do for American shipbuilding? Construction
alone will generate 5,000 new jobs in American shipbuilding during the
next 10 to 15 years.
Finally, each day we write a $12 million check to the Iraqi
Government for their oil. That is more than $4.4 billion a year. I
think it is time to put that money in our backyard instead of in the
backyard and into pocket indirectly of Bin Laden.
I thank the Chair for his attention.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________