[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 163 (Thursday, November 29, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12147-S12152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for
outlining his position on the legislation we are discussing, the energy
bill, H.R. 4. His presentation certainly summarized the fact that this
indeed is in the national security interest of our Nation. He pointed
out that our continued dependence on such unreliable sources as Iraq,
at a time when we are not sure what our next move will be, puts us in a
rather embarrassing position. He has certainly highlighted the
vulnerability of this country, which is growing; there is absolutely no
question about that.
The question we have--legitimate question--is just whether or not
H.R. 4, which has passed the House of Representatives and is before us,
does the job as a comprehensive energy bill. I am going to spend a
little time on that because I think the public deserves to know what is
in H.R. 4.
I will again ask my colleagues to reflect on the vote that is going
to take place on Monday. This is not a vote on the issue of ANWR; this
is a vote on the entire bill that passed the House of Representatives.
A vote will be seen and read strictly as a vote on passing an energy
bill. I think that is significant. It is a vote for or against passing
an energy bill that has passed the House of Representatives.
With that, of course, is the cloning ban. I support that. The Senator
from Kansas made an excellent presentation on the merits of that. It is
rather unusual to see such devoid issues brought together, but that
sometimes happens in this body. It is important to point that out and
highlight that Senator Brownback's presentation is simply a 6-month
ban. What we are seeing here on cloning is the scientific and medical
movement is so fast that we are not sure where the ethical evaluation
should come down. Therefore, a 6-month moratorium on cloning is
certainly in order. I certainly support that.
Here is what H.R. 4 does for the Nation. The amendment is the
legislative portion of the President's comprehensive energy policy. It
aims to secure America's energy future with a new national energy
strategy that is designed to reduce energy demand, increase energy
efficiency and supply, and enhance our energy infrastructure and our
energy security.
I think that should address the issue some have raised that this is
nothing but a very narrow bill containing ANWR. Let me tell you what we
have in here in the sense of reducing demand. This bill reauthorizes
Federal energy conservation programs and directs the Federal Government
to take leadership in energy conservation with new energy-saving goals.
Secondly, it expands Federal energy savings performance contracting
authority. It increases the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program,
LIHEAP. It provides weatherization and State energy program
authorization levels to meet the needs of low-income Americans. It
expands the EPA and the Department of Energy's so-called energy star
program. It directs the EPA and the Department of Energy to determine
whether energy star labels should be extended to additional products.
We used to see seals of the Underwriters Laboratories. This is much
like that, but these stars are awarded for reduction in energy use. In
other words, you can get a better, more efficient refrigerator, but you
probably won't because your other one is working just fine. But these
new ones deserve a particular rating and some identification. That is
what the energy star program is all about. It highlights that this is
indeed an energy-saving device and technology that has been put on your
iron, refrigerator, or dishwasher.
We need to encourage Americans to go out and buy these. But,
obviously, some are reluctant because theirs is working fine. But they
can reduce energy consumption and therefore their energy bill. It
directs the DOE to set standards for appliance standby mode energy use.
It reduces light truck fuel consumption by 5 billion gallons over 6
years. Now this is the CAFE--people are saying, ``Where are your CAFE
savings?'' It directs the DOE, in the sense of light truck fuel
consumption, to reduce it by 5 billion gallons over 6 years. It also
improves Federal fleet fuel economy and expands the use of hybrid
vehicles.
What do we mean by Federal fleet? We say before we put mandates on
the general public, let's put it on the Government fleet and see how it
works. That is kind of the old saying that charity begins at home. So
it will improve the Federal fleet economy. It increases funding for the
DOE's energy conservation and efficiency R&D programs designed to
reduce consumption of energy. It expands HUD programs to promote
energy-efficient single and multifamily housing. That should answer
pretty much the concern some have raised, well, you don't have anything
in your bill to reduce demand. I think we do.
On the issue of increased supply, we have provisions for
environmentally sensitive oil and gas exploration on the Arctic Coastal
Plain. That is ANWR. I will talk about ANWR later. Clearly, the
reserves are there. It is estimated to be between 5 and 16 billion
barrels. We have an average somewhere in between 5 and 16. It will be
as big as
[[Page S12148]]
Prudhoe Bay, now producing the 13 billionth barrel. We can get 10 out
in the field--the largest field ever found before. I have a chart here
that shows a comparison with our good neighbors from Texas, and I am
sure my staff can find it in a moment or two. As they look, I will move
into the other areas of increased supply.
I think we all assimilate in our minds domestic oil reserves coming
from the great State of Texas, and the great State of Texas has been
producing a lot of oil for a long time. This says: ANWR, More Oil Than
Texas. This is from the Energy Information Administration which reports
that Texas proven crude oil reserves are 5.3 billion barrels.
In 1998, the USGS estimated there is a 95-percent chance of more than
5.7 billion barrels from ANWR, a 50/50 chance of more than 10 billion
barrels of oil and a 5-percent chance of more than 16 billion barrels
of oil. So if we want to use the average, ANWR has more potential than
Texas.
I have heard my friend, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, speak
in generalities about why this should not be open. I have never heard a
good explanation as to whether or not he believes there is evidence to
suggest it cannot be opened safely, but he does generalize that it is
insignificant.
If the oil in ANWR were to be the average of 10 billion barrels, ANWR
would supply 321,428 barrels per day to the State of Massachusetts.
That would last the State of Massachusetts 85.2 years. The State of
Connecticut uses 216,000 barrels per day. It would last Connecticut 126
years. South Dakota uses 59,000 barrels a day. It would provide South
Dakota with 460.3 years for their petroleum needs. I throw that out
simply as a matter of comparison when individuals say the increased
supply is insignificant. It is not insignificant.
Further, increased supply authorizes new oil and gas R&D for
unconventional and ultra-deep-water production. We are seeing that in
the Gulf of Mexico. That is where our new finds are, in deep water. The
industry has done an extraordinary job of advanced technology, and they
have been very fortunate. They have had very few accidents. It provides
royalty relief incentives for deepwater leases in the central and
western Gulf of Mexico. It streamlines the administration of oil and
gas leases on Federal land. It authorizes the Department of Energy to
develop accelerated clean coal power initiatives. So it recognizes the
significant role of coal, which makes up nearly 50 percent of our power
generation in this country.
It establishes alternative fuel vehicles and green school bus
demonstration programs. That should appeal to many Members. It reduces
the royalty rate for development of biothermal energy and expedites
leases. It provides for regular assessment of renewable energy
resources and impediments to their use. It streamlines the licensing
process for hydroelectric dams and encourages increased output. It
provides new authorization for fossil, nuclear, hydrogen, biomass, and
renewable R&D.
These things are included to increase the supply, but they are not
only in ANWR. There is authorization for new technology, hydrogen,
biomass, renewable R&D, because we want to remove our dependence even
greater on imported oil. The difficulty many people fail to recognize
is America and the world move on oil because we do not have any other
alternative. We wish we did. We can generate electricity from coal,
from gas, from nuclear, from wind, but we cannot move America and we
cannot move the world. That is why we are becoming so dependent on
Mideast sources.
If this bill passes this House and this Senate, two things are going
to happen. We are going to send a message to OPEC. The message is going
to be loud and clear that the United States is committed to reduce its
dependence on OPEC. OPEC, I think, will read that and decide, all
things being equal, they had better be careful how they operate that
cartel because if they move it up too high, why, obviously it is not
going to be in their interest. So I think it will be a curb on prices
because the more we produce domestically, the less we will import. As
we know, those countries need those gas fuels, particularly the Saudis.
Finally, in the area of enhanced infrastructure and energy security,
it sets goals for reduction of United States dependence on foreign oil
and Iraqi imports. It initiates the review of existing rights of way on
Federal lands for energy potential. It directs the Department of Energy
to implement R&D and demonstrate use of distributed energy resources.
It invests in a new transmission infrastructure R&D program to ensure
reliable electricity.
It requires a study of boutique fuels and issues to minimize refinery
bottlenecks and supply shortages because, as we remember, it was not so
very long ago under the previous administration, when we had a shortage
of heating oil in the Northeast in the wintertime, the decision was
made to open up SPR. We took 30 million barrels out of SPR. Suddenly we
found we did not have the refining capacity because we had not built
new refineries in this country in 20, 25 years, so all we did was
displace what we were importing. That is kind of the situation. So this
does provide some relief.
It initiates supply potential for renewable transportation of fuels
to displaced oil imports, it offers scholarships to train the next
generation of energy workers, and it prohibits pipelines from being
placed on national registers of historic places. That is what the bill
does.
Last night the majority whip, Senator Reid, my good friend, came to
the Chamber, and I do not know whether he was ill informed or not, but
in any event I will comment a little bit on his statement. I assume it
was an attempt to support the majority leader's priorities from the
standpoint of the remaining time we have in this session and what those
priorities should be. I know many of my friends on both sides of the
aisle feel very strongly about the railroad retirement legislation, but
the majority leader stated he thinks it is more important this body
consider the railroad retirement legislation than comprehensive energy
legislation. That is contrary to polling information I just presented.
That polling information, as I said, indicated that 95 percent of
Americans say Federal action on an energy bill is important. That is
not enough because 72 percent of the Americans say passing an energy
bill is a higher priority than other actions Congress might take.
We have seen polls from time to time. We take them or leave them, but
this was an IPSOS-Reid poll done in November. So clearly there is a
little bit of difference expressed by the polling information on what
the priorities should be.
Now, evidently, the leader thinks it is more important that we
consider a farm bill. It is kind of interesting about how we set
priorities because the farm bill does not expire until the end of next
year. Does it have the same prioritization as the exposure we are
seeing in the Persian Gulf, the danger of terrorism to Saudi Arabia in
bringing down the Royal Family, a couple of tankers colliding in a
terrorist attack in the Straits of Hormuz, terrorizing oil fields?
These are the crises that would come about, and clearly with our
increased dependence on Iraqi oil and the fact we are looking to
finalize things over there against those who sponsor terrorism, it is
beyond me how the leader would consider the farm bill as being more
important, particularly when it is not due to expire until the end of
next year.
I know what good soldiers are about. I have been in the majority and
I have been in the minority, and sometimes we are asked to defend the
indefensible. That is politics. I think the whip is doing a good job as
we have come to understand he always does in the Senate. However, I
really cannot stand by and watch the facts simply evaporate. As I
indicated, we simply cannot stand by and watch the facts simply
evaporate. I emphasize ``facts.''
During his comments, the majority whip stated that the overall
benefits to the country for developing a small area of the Arctic
Coastal Plain were ``nonexistent.'' I find it rather ironic that he
would make that blatant statement. Nonexistent? Did the majority whip
really say the overall benefit to the country would be nonexistent when
we have seen the Teamsters, the unions, the veterans, the minority
groups in this country say they think this is the most important thing
for the Senate to take up, and the fact that the House has passed it
sends a strong message. We have some work to do.
[[Page S12149]]
When he said that would be nonexistent, I asked myself, can he really
believe that? Does he really think the facts support his assertion?
Knowing that the majority whip would never deliberately mislead other
Senators, I only conclude he doesn't know all the facts. He, as well as
the majority leader, have never taken the time to visit the area. We
have made repeated offers. I have taken many Members there.
It is ironic we only have to justify on the side of the proponents
the merits of the issue based on our personal experience, the
experience of my senior colleague, Senator Stevens, and Representative
Don Young. The administration has seen the area, physically gone up
there. The Secretary of Interior has been up there twice. I took her up
last February. We took off with a wind chill factor of 72 degrees below
zero. It is tough country.
One chart shows the bleakness of the Arctic in the wintertime. I am
also convinced the only way the Senator might learn those facts, if he
doesn't visit the area, would be if I were to share more and more facts
with him in the hopes he will understand. I am here to make the Nation
aware of the significance of what this could mean to our energy
security. I will also make the Nation aware of the benefits to the
country in opening a small sliver of the Arctic Coastal Plain for
development.
Today, I will share with the Senate what the Clinton administration
said about ANWR. I think my colleagues should know what the previous
administration said about ANWR, as related by the Energy Information
Agency in May of 2000, an agency created by Congress to give unbiased
energy information. I will come back to this in a moment.
ANWR is the area on this chart to the right on the map of Alaska.
Also shown is the State of South Carolina for a size comparison. There
are 19 million acres in ANWR. We have 365 in the whole State. ANWR, on
the big chart, the 19 million acres, is already predestined by Congress
for specific designation. The darker yellow is part of the refuge. The
lighter yellow is in a wilderness in perpetuity. That is about 8
million acres. The green at the top is the 1002 area, or the ANWR
coastal plain. The geologists say this is a very productive area. It is
60 miles from Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay, of course, is the field that
has been producing for some 27 years.
The TAPS pipeline is an 800-mile pipeline traversing the length of
Alaska. Interestingly enough, when that was built 27 years ago, we had
arguments in the Senate whether that could be built safely. What would
happen to the animals? What would happen to a hot pipeline in
permafrost. Would it break? All the same arguments are being used
today. There was a tie in the Senate, and the Vice President came in
and broke the tie. I cannot recall how many hundreds of billions of
barrels we have received, but for an extended period of time that was
flowing at 2 million barrels a day. It is a little over 1 million
barrels at this time.
This map shows another area worthy of some consideration. That is the
red dot. That is the footprint associated with the development. In the
House bill that is 2,000 acres. I know the occupant of the chair knows
what 2,000 acres is. Robert Redford has a farm in Utah of 5,000 acres.
Keep in mind this authorization is for 2,000 acres, a permanent
footprint, out of 19 million acres. Is that unreasonable? I don't think
it is.
Some are under the impression this is a pristine area that has not
been subject to any development or any population. Of course, a village
is at the top of the map. Real people live there. They have hopes and
aspirations for a better lifestyle and better working conditions, jobs,
health conditions, schools. There is a picture of some of the Eskimo
kids going to school and nobody there to shovel the walks. There is
also a picture of the public buildings, in front of the community hall,
with pictures of the Eskimo's two modes of transportation: One is a
snow machine and the other is a bicycle. That should take care of the
myth that nobody is up there. Real people live there.
The Coastal Plain comprises approximately 8 percent of the 19 million
acres. ANWR is along the geological trend that is productive in the
sense that the oil flows in the same general area. This is the largest
unexplored potential production onshore base in the entire United
States, according to the Energy Information Agency.
I return now to the statement of the Clinton administration: This is
the largest unexplored potential onshore base in the United States. The
Energy Information Agency, under the Clinton administration, did not
think the benefits of ANWR would be nonexistent on our Nation's energy
supplies. That is why I am amused that the majority whip would use the
term ``nonexistent.''
The Department of Interior says if the Energy Information
Administration isn't good enough, how about the Department of the
Interior under Bruce Babbitt?
I am wondering if that argument isn't enough to convince the majority
whip that the benefits of ANWR are not nonexistent on energy supplies.
According to a 1998 Department of the Interior study under the
previous administration, there is a 95-percent probability--that is 19
in 20 chances--that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil in ANWR is
recoverable. That is about half what we would recover initially from
Prudhoe Bay. There is a 50-50 chance that there is 10.3 billion barrels
of recoverable oil. And there is a 5-percent chance at least 16 billion
barrels are recoverable.
These are not my numbers. These are not coming from Frank Murkowski
or Don Young or Ted Stevens. These aren't the environmental fundraiser
groups' numbers. These are Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's
scientific numbers.
I fail to recognize how the majority whip can add these up and
suggest that it is nonexistent, as was stated by the whip. How much oil
is there reason to believe is there? We don't know. We won't know until
we get in there. Senators might wonder how much these numbers add up
to. How much impact would oil from ANWR have on our Nation's energy
security, our economy, our jobs?
Let me try to put that in perspective. According to the Independent
Energy Information Administration, at the end of 2000, Texas had 5.27
billion barrels of proven reserves. That means there is a 95-percent
chance that ANWR has more oil than all of Texas. Think of the jobs
associated with the oil industry in Texas.
California has 3.8 billion barrels of proven reserves. There is a 95-
percent chance that ANWR has more oil than all of California.
New Mexico has 718 million barrels of proven reserve. There is a 95-
percent chance that ANWR can recover almost 8 times as much oil as is
proven to exist in New Mexico.
Louisiana has 529 million barrels of proven reserves. Oklahoma, 610
million; Michigan, 56 million; Pennsylvania, 15 million; Nevada,
Massachusetts, and Connecticut had no proven reserves.
In fact, the Energy Information Agency states that the lower 48
States have total proven reserves of 17,184,000,000 barrels of oil.
That's it, 17 billion. This could come in at the high end. If we are
lucky enough to hit Secretary Babbitt's high number of 16 billion
barrels, ANWR would almost double U.S. reserves.
These are not my figures. They are figures of the previous Secretary
of the Interior. Are these benefits nonexistent, as the whip has
indicated last evening?
I hope this will clarify the issue for the majority whip, and any
other Senators who might wonder whether ANWR would have an impact on
our energy security, economy, or our jobs. To repeat, ANWR could
potentially double our reserves overnight. Do I know it will? No. Does
anyone else? No. But I will certainly take the word of the Clinton
administration scientists over the word of the environmental
fundraising groups. They have never wanted this issue resolved because
they would no longer have their best fundraising issue to lie their way
into well-intentioned American wallets. It is easy to understand how
people might be misled. These groups have simply not been telling the
truth, period.
I am happy to debate any and all, at any time, on the merits of this
issue. If there are those who do not believe me, or the Clinton
administration, how about organized labor? Teamsters, maritime,
construction trade unions,
[[Page S12150]]
the AFL/CIO, operating engineers, and many other unions have joined us
in support of this legislation. They think it will have a great impact
on the economy, on our national security, on our jobs. They estimate
between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs will be created here at home by
opening ANWR.
They do not believe the benefits to our Nation are nonexistent, as
the majority whip has indicated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent I may have another 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take a note here,
relative to the number of ships that would have to be built if, indeed,
ANWR were opened. A lot of people overlook the reality that Alaskan oil
is unique. It has to move in U.S.-flagged vessels because the Jones Act
requires that. Any movement of goods and material between two U.S.
ports has to be moved in a U.S.-flagged vessel. So all the oil from
Alaska moves down in ships built in U.S. yards, with U.S. crews, and
flying the American flag.
This is the largest concentration of U.S.-flagged tankers in
existence in our country, in this particular trade. They would require,
if ANWR opens, 19 double-hulled tankers which would add about $4
billion to the economy and create 5,000 jobs each for 17 years because
these new ships will come on as replacements for others.
I do not know if those benefits are nonexistent, but to the States--
Maine, where they are likely to build some of these ships; Alabama,
Mississippi, Texas, Washington, California--these are jobs. These are
good jobs, good jobs in U.S. shipyards.
What about these other ships that bring in oil, the 56 percent that
are coming from overseas? They bring their oil in foreign-flagged
vessels. They don't have the deep pockets of an Exxon.
I will conclude because I see other Senators are here waiting for
recognition. But I want to ask again, the benefits are nonexistent? I
hope this will clarify the issue for the majority whip and any other
Senators who might wonder whether ANWR would have any impact on our
energy security, the economy, and jobs.
To repeat, ANWR could almost double our reserves overnight. Do I know
it will? Does anyone? No. But I, again, would take the word of the
Clinton administration scientists over the word of the environmental
fundraising groups. They have never wanted this issue resolved because,
as I indicated, they would no longer have the best fundraising issue to
lie their way into well-intentioned American wallets.
It would be easy to understand how they might be misled but, as I
have indicated, they pulled the wool over the public's eyes. This is an
issue that involves our national energy security. It is a very
fundamental issue.
I will conclude by, again, referring to the other organizations--the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans
Institute--which think it is good for the national security. They do
not believe the benefits to our Nation are nonexistent, and they ought
to know. They fought the wars.
The House acted on national energy security legislation before
September 11. Frankly, they have shown up the Senate. In that body,
committees were allowed to advance energy legislation, debate it, and
pass it to the floor for further consideration.
Here, the majority leader seized the bill from the committee of
jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which I am
a ranking member. I used to be chairman. He has seized the bill from
the committee of jurisdiction and has substituted his will for the will
of the committee. He has bypassed the committee process entirely.
I am very disappointed that we were not able to bring around the
majority to recognize this matter should go to the committee of
authorization and not be taken away from it, but I am not chairman of
that committee anymore.
Finally, I offer up this question to the Senate: If, indeed, the
benefits to this country were nonexistent, there was so little oil
there, then why is there such a huge campaign to deny Americans that
oil? We can all ask ourselves why--16 billion barrels of oil, times $30
a barrel, is almost one-half trillion dollars.
It is about $480 billion; $480 billion is nonexistent? If that is the
price about the time ANWR comes on line, that means $480 billion stays
at home rather than being spent abroad for oil. With that kind of
money, we can better provide for our schools, our security, our health
care system, our elderly.
Here we are today rising before this body at last to take up an
energy bill. The amendment offered by Senator Lott is the underlying
legislation. Divisions A through G of the amendment will provide us
with the remainder of a comprehensive energy policy to guide this
Nation into the future.
As I have indicated specifically, these provisions provide ways to do
the following: Reduce our demand for energy, increase our domestic
supply of energy, invest in our energy infrastructure, and enhance
energy security.
I will go into more detail at a later time.
But for the past decade, America has lacked a comprehensive energy
strategy. We are aware of that. Without such a guidebook, our record of
economic expansion and resulting growth in demand has outpaced our
energy production. We saw a similar situation last year in the sense of
a perfect storm, if you will. All the parts of our energy supply were
stretched, and there were limits on output. We actually saw that occur.
As we know, when supply doesn't meet demand, prices go up. When you
have a cartel such as OPEC, they are able to do things that antitrust
laws in the United States simply prohibit. They are able to set prices
by reducing supply. As we all know, when supply doesn't meet demand,
the price rises.
Rising energy prices have already been blamed by many economists for
putting us into the recession we now face. It is a matter of particular
importance that we develop a comprehensive national energy strategy for
our economic and our national security.
Under previous control of this body by the Republicans, the Senate
had a very aggressive timetable. That timetable was to get a
comprehensive energy bill passed by the Fourth of July. We were working
on this bill and introduced it shortly after we came in last year in
late January. We had a change. And the GOP left a legacy to the other
side. We have done our part.
When I was chairman, our committee had 24 hearings. We heard from 160
witnesses, and we introduced the Murkowski-Breaux bipartisan bill and
were ready to move. The President's national energy policy framed the
debate.
I can see no reason why the Democrats should not have kept this
schedule. But since they took control, we have had a few hearings and
heard from some of the same witnesses. We started a markup on the bill
of the new chairman in August. We engaged in good-faith discussions to
come to a consensus only to find our committee stripped of its
jurisdiction by the majority leader because he pulled the plug on the
Energy Committee's deliberations and simply took over the process
bypassing the authorizing committee and bypassing Senator Bingaman, who
is the chairman. I can only guess why.
We had the votes in committee to pass out an energy bill. We asked
the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for a date certain. We asked the
chairman of the committee, Senator Bingaman, for a date certain. The
statement from our Senate leadership is there will be no new energy
bill this year. That statement has been made.
At least we are in the Chamber tonight. We have an energy bill up for
consideration. I thank all my colleagues who played a role in assuring
this would come about, because I made a commitment that we were going
to bring this matter up before we go out on recess. Now we are in it.
In recent weeks, there has been considerable talk of the need to
address the Nation's problems in the old spirit in a bipartisan manner.
I wish we could. We have seen this with respect to an antiterrorist
package, the airline security measure, and several other pieces of
legislation. Sadly, this air of ``bipartisanship'' has broken down with
respect to energy policy. We now find ourselves in a partisan standoff.
I think, though, we all agree we need an energy policy. We have one
which
[[Page S12151]]
passed the House. That is before us. It is up to us to address whether
we are going to simply walk out of here without an energy policy or
take this up seriously, vote it out, get it to conference, and respond
to the request of our President.
We have seen threats of filibusters, suspension of committee
activities, and a failure to give the American people a fair, open, and
honest debate on this issue.
I do not think, and I refuse to accept, that meeting the energy needs
of this Nation is a partisan issue.
At the beginning of the session, I sought out my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle for their ideas and suggestions. And as
committee chairman, I delayed introducing any legislation until a
measure could be developed that reflected their interests. We worked
hard on that.
S. 389, while not perfect, met that requirement and remains the only
bipartisan comprehensive energy measure introduced in the Senate.
At a time when the country is seeking unity and bipartisanship, we
should be moving forward with a bipartisan energy bill. Just as we did
last year with respect to electricity, we should put the contentious
issues to a fair and open debate, and vote on them.
Repeatedly, the President has called on Congress to pass energy
legislation as a part of our efforts to enhance national security.
With H.R. 4, the bill now sitting on the Senate calendar, the House
of Representatives has done its job. Now it's the Senate's turn. The
best thing we can do to ensure this Nation's energy security is to act
now: take up the House bill, amend it, and go to conference.
Make no mistake about it. That is what we should do. This energy
policy proposal will create new jobs in domestic production and new
energy technologies. This will be a significant economic stimulus that
couldn't come any sooner--when the economy needs thousands of new jobs.
At stake are billions of dollars in construction spending, hundreds
of thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars that won't go overseas in
future energy spending.
Our increasing dependence on foreign oil helps to support the very
terrorists we now fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. We import
nearly a million barrels per day of oil from Iraq, and some of our oil
payments to Saudi Arabia may have been used against us in the events of
September 11.
As a matter of national importance, we cannot allow our energy
security to get bogged down in partisanship and procedural maneuvers.
One of the purposes of committees is to test various proposals and to
provide the Senate with a considered recommendation. A majority of the
members of the Energy Committee have been willing to provide this
advice--and report out a bill. Yet the majority leader and the
committee chairman have seen fit to ``short-circuit'' the regular order
to avoid votes on certain issues. These votes would prevail if we could
get the matter up in the committee.
The American people deserve better than this. They deserve more than
just partisan sniping on energy issues. We certainly need to provide
for the security of our energy supply. We need to deal with our
infrastructure and our domestic capacity for development, refining and
transportation and transmission. And we should take those steps that we
can all agree on to promote the energy technologies of the next decade
and beyond.
Our Nation deserves a fair, honest, and open debate on all aspects of
the important energy issues, including ANWR. This is a debate that a
majority of members were ready to have in committee, but that
opportunity was denied us. We are ready to have that debate and let the
votes fall where they may on all the contentious issues that remain.
So let us now finally--since we are on the bill--have this debate so
we can look the American people--our constituents--in the eye when we
go home for the holidays and say that, yes, we have passed, in the
national interest, an energy bill, H.R. 4, which passed the House
overwhelmingly; and then tell them we are going to do our part to
provide safe, secure, and affordable energy supplies now and into the
future.
At this critical point in our Nation's history, we clearly need a
national energy strategy to ensure a stable, reliable, and affordable
energy supply.
While many choices have been forced upon us in the aftermath of
September 11, we now have the chance to choose our energy future. The
other alternative is simply to dodge the issue. Will we have the
courage to act? Will we have the courage to make the difficult
decisions we avoided some 10 years ago?
In 1995, ANWR was in the omnibus bill. It was an energy bill. It
passed this body. It was vetoed by the President. Had he signed that
order, we would know what was in ANWR. We could be producing from ANWR.
The question is, When are we going to start?
As the President said, there was a good bill passed out of the House
of Representatives. Now it is the job of the Senate. The Senate can and
must act.
I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this amendment to
ensure the security of our energy supply, our economy, and our Nation
for years to come.
I thank the Chair for being patient. We are going to be back on this
tomorrow. I thank the majority whip for his indulgence as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Before my friend, the distinguished Senator from Alaska,
leaves the Chamber, I did want to say that I was a little disappointed,
when he went over the reserves in various States, that he said Nevada
had nothing.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the terminology is ``inexistent.''
Mr. REID. Inexistent? The reason I mention that is for 6 years Nevada
had the largest single producing oil well in the United States in a
place called Railroad Valley. The well went dry about 8 or 9 years ago.
But for 6 years it was the best in the country.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was talking about current reserves, so there very
well may have been a well in Nevada, but there isn't anymore.
Mr. REID. That we have found yet.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Railroad
Retirement and Survivor's Improvement Act of 2001. As a Senator from
Wyoming, I represent a State that bears the undeniable mark of the
railroads. Many of the towns across the southern corridor of my State
were established on the sites of old railroad shanty towns. These
shanty towns were constructed to house the workers that built the
railroads. The railroad workers brought diversity to Wyoming. Many of
my constituents with Chinese, Irish and Italian heritages call Wyoming
home because their ancestors moved there with the railroad.
The railroad is still an integral part of Wyoming today. It
transports one of our greatest energy resources, low-sulfur coal, to
States that lack our power supply. And today's railroad workers are
still an important part of the Wyoming population. I support this bill
because I support providing the survivors of railroad employees with
the benefits they require to live out their days in my State and other
States. I support this bill for another reason; it is a viable option
to provide solvency to the railroad retirement fund and increase
retirement benefits and while lowering employer taxes.
These two results may sound mutually exclusive, but I assure you that
they are not. The bill authorizes the newly created Railroad Retirement
Trust Fund to invest the current Railroad Retirement Account in
securities, including stocks and bonds. Even a conservative estimate
places the rate of return on these investments as greater than the
current rate of return in government accounts. This is the mechanism
that allows retirement benefits to increase while taxes decrease.
As an accountant, I refrained from sponsoring the bill until I
reviewed the actuarial report. After examining the report, I determined
that the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund would remain well-capitalized
and able to pay benefits under this legislation far into the future.
The actuarial report indicated that this would occur even during
mediocre economic conditions.
This bill would directly benefit Wyoming railroaders and their
spouses by allowing 100 percent benefits for survivors of eligible
retirees. It would lower the retirement age from 62 to 60
[[Page S12152]]
years for employees that have worked at least 30 years for the
railroad. Some of my colleagues have asked why we should lower the
railroad retirement age when the Social Security retirement age is
increasing from 65 to 67. It is important to make a distinction between
Tier I and Tier II benefits in this plan. Tier I benefits are
comparable to Social Security benefits, and they do not start paying
until the equivalent Social Security benefits are payed. Currently,
that is at age 65. Tier II benefits, which are funded by taxes to the
railroad employers and employees, pay the early retirement benefits for
eligible workers. This is very similar to the ``bridge plan'' offered
by private pension plans. This is important because railroading is a
physically rigorous profession that ages a body prematurely and is
still considered hazardous.
This legislation includes an automatic tax trigger that initiates an
increase or decrease of the employer's taxes if the trust fund's amount
moves outside of preset barriers. The barriers would ensure that a
cushion of 4 to 6 years' worth of benefits payable remain in the
account. A number of my colleagues have been presenting graphs that
show benefit levels falling and employer taxes increasing 20 years
after the program is initiated. I do not dispute this. In fact, it
shows the fund's ability to manage itself and respond to decreases in
its cushion.
As a Wyoming Senator and an accountant, I support the Railroad
Retirement and Survivor's Improvement Act. I support it as a
responsible way to manage the funds entrusted to us by the railroad
workers. I support it as a way to fully care for the individuals that
have contributed so much to our nation's infrastructure. I ask that my
colleagues do the same and pass this bill.
____________________