Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 164 (Friday, November 30, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 164 (Friday, November 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12233-S12238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY POLICY

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me make sure we know where we are
on the legislation before the Senate.

[[Page S12234]]

The underlying bill is the railroad retirement bill. We have two
amendments combined as one, one is the adoption of H.R. 4, the House
energy bill; the other issue concerns a moratorium on cloning for 6
months. That is Senator Brownback's legislation.
I will speak today on the energy issue because I think it is
paramount. If we look at the polling information we have, it is obvious
what American public opinion consists of. This survey was done in
November by the IPSOS-Reid Corporation: 95 percent of Americans say any
Federal action on energy is important; 72 percent of Americans say
passing an energy bill is a higher priority than any other action
Congress could take. Mr. President, 73 percent of Americans say
Congress should make the energy bill part of President Bush's stimulus
plan. Mr. President, 67 percent of Americans say expiration of new
energy sources in the United States, specifically ANWR, is convincing
reason to support passing an energy policy bill. That is 67 percent.
I am not particularly happy with the way the energy bill, H.R. 4,
which we introduced, is here. It is the House bill, which did pass the
House by a substantial margin. I am fearful the vote on Monday at 5
o'clock will be somewhat convoluted because you will be looking at
several issues at the same time and Members can justify their positions
on perhaps previously having voiced their support for the railroad
retirement bill, or voiced their opposition against cloning, or been a
proponent or opponent of the House bill.
In any event, the good news is we finally have a energy bill up for
discussion because that has not been the case before, because of the
majority leader's refusal to allow us time but, more significantly, the
refusal to allow the committee process to work.
As we have seen ordinarily around here, the committees do their work
and report out a bill and the bill comes before an entire Senate. In
this particular case, the energy bill was taken away from the committee
chairman and taken over basically by Senator Tom Daschle. In so doing,
he really stripped, if you will, the responsibility of the committee of
jurisdiction. But as the ranking member, all I can do is express my
frustration. As a consequence, we still do not have the Democratic bill
that we anticipate is coming.
I think it is fair to say there has been a deliberate attempt to
discourage the taking up of the House bill before the Senate body, in
the manner in which the majority leader has simply exerted his
influence. So the members of the committee of jurisdiction will not
have had any input in the development, at least from the Republican
side, of whatever we are likely to see next week.

Some have said, what is the importance of this? Is there some reason
we are rushing into this? I remind my colleagues, we are not rushing
into it. This has been before us for a couple of years. We introduced
the bill, Senator Breaux and I, earlier this year. We have had hearings
on it. On the other hand, we were precluded from reporting it out of
committee for the simple reason that we didn't have the votes to report
it out of committee.
This morning we had some discussion with the Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman. He made several arguments against one
portion of the bill and that is the opening of ANWR. I am going to be
rebutting these over a period of time because that seems to be the only
way we can focus in on the points and try to counter those points with
facts rather than fiction.
What he failed to mention earlier today was the rights and interests
of the Native people of Alaska who live in the 1002 area, the area of
Kaktovik, and their rights to develop their own land in this area. As
the chart behind me shows, you can see the ownership of the 95,000
acres of land that is private Native land. This is the 95,000 acres of
Native land that is within the 1002 area. That is the area that would
be leased.
In the manner in which this land was transferred over to them, while
they have the land in fee simple, they have no authority to drill for
gas for heating their own homes. These are American citizens entitled
to the same rights as any other American citizen. They do live in the
area. As a consequence, their rights are certainly thwarted opening up
this area where they would have not only access to develop those lands;
they would also have access for a route out if they should wish to
initiate some exploration.
It is important to recognize there is a human element here. The human
element is the residents, the kid who lives in Kaktovik. You have seen
the picture before. Some people are under the impression that this is
the Serengeti of the Arctic. We have views of the Serengeti, but that
is Kaktovik, and it is a village of less than 400 people. The point is,
people live there. The point is, it is a very harsh environment.
All through the debate there is no mention of the rights of these
people. It is always the environmental community that says we should
not support opening ANWR. They come up with no evidence, no suggestion
we cannot do it safely. It is just generalities.
Throughout this debate what I am going to be doing is countering the
comments that have already been made because they are the same tired
arguments you have heard previously. One of the comments is it is only
a 6-month supply. That is a ridiculous argument. How anybody could even
repeat it here is beyond me because we all know that could only happen
if there was no oil production in the United States, it all stopped,
there would be no further importation coming into the United States in
ships, and we would only depend on one source. That is a bogus
argument. I am amazed that intelligent Members of this body would even
stoop to suggesting that anyone would buy that kind of argument, a 6-
month supply.
Clearly, what we are talking about is a significant discovery,
somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels a day. What does that
mean? That means more oil, more proven oil than in Texas. Texas is
always considered to be one of the major oil producing States and it
is. But from the Energy Information Administration Reports, Texas'
proven reserves total 5.3 billion barrels. In 1998, the USGS estimated
there was a 95-percent chance that more than 5.7 billion barrels would
be found in ANWR. That is a 95-percent chance. That is more than the
proven reserves in Texas today.

There is a 50-percent chance of more than 10 billion barrels, and a
5-percent chance of more than 16 billion barrels.
I am going to go into this a little bit more because it is something
that constantly comes up, because it is something that was coined by
the extreme environmental community that is opposed to this: a 6-month
supply. Let's look at this on an average. The average would be Prudhoe
Bay.
We have some pictures of Prudhoe Bay here. You can see the oilfield
over there; it is the largest oilfield ever found in North America. It
was supposed to produce 10 billion barrels and it is almost to its 13
billionth barrel now. That has been supplying the Nation with about 20
percent of its total crude oil for the last 27 years. So it is very
significant.
Here is ANWR over here. There is Kaktovik, the village you have seen
the pictures of. Then there is the makeup of just what is ANWR. I have
told people time and time again, it is a big hunk of real estate. It is
19 million acres in its entirety. The entire State of Alaska is about
365 million acres.
What we have done is, we have done a little comparison for you to
show you that ANWR and South Carolina are about the same size. The only
difference in the ANWR 19 million acres, we set aside 8.5 million acres
as a wilderness in perpetuity. Those are not going to be touched. Nor
is the balance of the refuge in the darker yellow. Only the green area
is proposed for lease sale. In the House bill before us, the footprint
is limited to 2,000 acres. That is the little square you see up in red.
That is the proportion. You have the pipeline already in, the 800-
mile pipeline. The same arguments that were used in the 1970s against
the pipeline and the late 1960s are prevailing today. We built that
pipeline. It is one of the construction wonders of the world. It has
moved 20, 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country.
I know there are some who have, simply, a closed mind to this issue
because they made a commitment to America's environmental community. It
is our job to make a commitment to do what is right for America, and
what is right for America is to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
You do it one

[[Page S12235]]

way. You do it by producing more domestically.
You can talk all you want about energy savings, the world moves on
oil. You don't drive out of here on hot air. You don't fly out of here
on hot air. Your ships and your trains don't move out on hot air. They
move on oil. I wish we had another alternative, but we do not.
We can talk about coal. We can talk about natural gas. We can talk
about nuclear and we can make our points, but the world moves on oil
and we are going to continue moving on oil for some time in the future.
That is why it is so important that we develop, here in the United
States, an additional supply of significance.
Don't tell me about a 6-month supply because, if you do, you are
doing a disservice, not only to your other colleagues but to yourself
because you are kidding yourself.
If there is no oil there, believe me, it is not going to be
developed. There is no consideration for the Native people's rights. I
talked about that earlier this morning. That distresses me because they
are my constituents. They have every right as American citizens to
control their land and develop their land, and they can't even drill
for gas to heat their homes.
Some say we are rushing through this too fast. We have had hearings.
Here is the history. Between the 100th and 107th Congresses--this has
been around for a long time--there have been over 50 bills regarding
this topic, there have been 60 hearings, there have been 5 markups.
Legislation authorizing the opening of ANWR passed the Senate once
already--in 1995. Legislation authorizing the opening of ANWR passed
the House twice already. The conference report authorizing the opening
of ANWR passed the Congress back in 1995. It passed the Senate. But,
unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed it. If we had passed it in
1995, it could very well be producing oil.
Something that should lie in the minds of all Americans is that we
are starting to lose lives over oil. We lost two U.S. Navy sailors
because a ship sank while being inspected by the Navy. It was sailing
out of Iraq filled with illegal oil that had gotten beyond the
oversight of the U.N. inspectors. The sailors were on that vessel
inspecting it, and the ship sank.
The point is this: Had this particular legislation not been vetoed by
the President in 1995, I am sure we would have had a different
situation relative to the situation we see currently in Iraq. I will
talk about that a little later.
In any event, to suggest this thing be given further study, that is a
cop-out. We have been at this. We have had hearings. I know the
occupant of the chair has been on the committee. This has been under
discussion. The obvious road block here is the refusal of the
Democratic leadership to allow us to vote it out of committee and to
have an up-or-down vote in the committee. They took way the authority
of Chairman Bingaman and rested it with the majority leader. They do
not have a bill yet. Maybe they will have a bill in a day or two, with
little or no Republican input. This has become a very partisan issue.
It is similar to what happened on the Finance Committee with the
stimulus bill. We had no input, and suddenly we went to markup and to
voting the bill out and found it was so partisan that we had to start
the process again.
I don't know what the majority leader's objective is in delaying. But
we finally have this up before this body. Again, I am distressed with
the manner in which we are forced to tie ourselves in on railroad
retirement. That should be a separate bill. Nevertheless, we have to
take what we can get around here. When you are a small State with a
small population, you don't have a large House membership. As you know,
we only have one House Member.
Some of the comments from my friend, Senator Lieberman, this morning,
about this being an insignificant amount of oil--let me tell you that
the estimated 10 billion barrels of oil coming out of ANWR would
support his State of Connecticut for 126\1/2\ years based on the
current petroleum needs of about 216,000 barrels a day. From the
standpoint of South Dakota, it would provide oil for South Dakota for
460 years.
We can all throw statistics around. Nevertheless, it is frustrating
when there are suggestions that this is a meaningless, insignificant
potential and not worth disturbing what they call the Serengeti of the
Arctic.
Let me comment a little bit on some of the claims by the Senator from
Connecticut that we are rushing through the ANWR process. As I
indicated, nothing could be further from the truth.
A conference report authorizing the opening of ANWR passed the
Congress in 1995. Reviewing the history shows that ANWR has not only
been addressed by this body but it has also been addressed by various
agencies of the Department of the Interior, the House of
Representatives. The proposal has been before Congress for 14 years.
The time to act is long overdue. The issue has been dragged out long
enough over the years. I think both sides know what is happening to us
with the vulnerability associated with our increased dependence.
I have some charts that show the actual increase in consumption.
Here is the reality of U.S. petroleum consumption from January of
1990 to September of 1999. You can see that we are currently at a
little over 20 million barrels a day in consumption. We can conserve
more. If you want a high-mileage car, you can buy it. Any American can
choose, through their own free will, cars that are more comfortable or
cars that can handle more people.
We have some other charts I want to bring up.
This is where our imports come from--from the OPEC nations: Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, and Nigeria. We are importing currently about
56 percent of our total crude oil. I think we have another chart that
shows just where we have been. In 1997, we were importing 37 percent.
We were importing 56 percent in 2001. The Department of Energy
estimates that we will import 66 percent by the year 2010.
What does that do to our national security? I will get into that a
little later. Clearly, it is an issue that should be addressed.
Another issue is that of jobs. I have always believed that if anybody
in this body could identify a singular more important stimulus than
opening up ANWR, I would certainly like to hear from them. That offer
is still out there because I haven't heard from them.
To give us some idea specifically of what would be initiated by
opening this Coastal Plain, the development scenario can only take
place on 2,000 acres. That is what is in the bill. That is what is in
H.R. 4.
Let's talk a little bit about the realization that we are likely to
get somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels a day and what it is
going to do for jobs. This is a jobs issue.
First of all, the area has to be leased. It is Federal land. There
would be a lease proposal. The estimate of the bids that would come in
by the major oil companies, such as ExxonMobil, Texaco, or Phillips
Petroleum, and others would be somewhere in the area of $3 billion. The
taxpayers would obviously see a generation of funds coming from the
private sales and going into the general fund.
Let's talk about jobs.
There was a generalization made by Senator Lieberman that the jobs
issue is insignificant because more jobs could be created, if you will,
by energy conservation. I wish that were true. I wish we could justify
that with some statistical information to prove it, because we are
talking about continued dependence on imported oil and how we can
relieve that. We are not talking about energy as a whole.

There are various studies we have seen over the years. According to
the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Association, ANWR development
should produce 735,000 jobs in all 50 States. Why? Because we do not
make valves; we don't make insulation. These things are made in various
States in the United States.
In a different study, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated ANWR
will produce 250,000 full-time jobs in America. Interestingly enough,
this study was contracted out to a Massachusetts firm. This is
something of which the junior Senator from Massachusetts should take
note. Let me repeat--he was here earlier; unfortunately, he is not in
the Chamber now--a firm in his own State has estimated at least

[[Page S12236]]

250,000 jobs will be produced. I am not sure he is aware of that. And
this contract was given to a Massachusetts firm.
Opponents of drilling in ANWR try to downplay these arguments and try
to argue the lower numbers. But regardless of whether it is 250,000 or
735,000, either way, it would still be a step in the right direction as
far as stimulus to the economy because where else can you find another
issue that will employ somewhere between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs and
does not cost the taxpayers one red cent. And it keeps the jobs here at
home rather than sending our dollars overseas and importing the oil.
Every single new job in this country is important, particularly at a
time when we have a recession and a downturn.
As a consequence, I think it is important to note that those who know
a lot about job creation wholeheartedly support drilling in ANWR. I am
talking about the unions, such as the maritime unions, the Teamsters,
the seafarers, and various others.
The North Slope oil fields have already significantly contributed
more than $300 billion to the U.S. economy.
If we go through some recent announcements, let me tell you the
significance of a couple hundred thousand jobs.
On November 29, it was announced 1,409 jobs may be lost. IBM
announced 1,000 layoffs.
On November 28, it was announced 850 jobs may be lost. Ames
Department Stores announced they will close a distribution center in
Ohio, which jeopardized 450 jobs.
I could give you a list of the various announced job cuts.
Alcoa plans to lay off 6,500 employees and close plants.
Chevron announced 550 more job cuts.
Every day we have seen news clips to this effect. So we should be
very concerned about stimulating the American economy and generating
jobs in the private sector. And this is one of the best ways to do it.
My friend, the Senator from Oregon, is the Presiding Officer. I know
the activity associated with Alaska's oilfields has traditionally been
important to Oregon, particularly to the shipyards there.
It is estimated by the American Petroleum Institute that 19 new
double-hull tankers will be needed if ANWR is opened. All U.S. ships
will have to be built at U.S. shipyards and carry the American flag.
The analysis predicts that the construction of these tankers will boost
the economy of America by producing more jobs in the shipyards. They
indicate that the new tankers will be needed solely because the old
North Slope tankers are being phased out by 2015 because of the double-
hull tanker requirements.
So more American jobs will be created because the Jones Act requires
that the oil that is transported within the United States--namely, my
State of Alaska down to either Washington or California; but in
Portland there is a large shipyard that has accommodated these ships
before--must be transported by tankers by U.S.-flagged vessels built in
the United States. The analysis correctly assumes that if ANWR passes,
it will include an oil export ban. So there will be a provision that
this oil cannot be exported. It also assumes that the ANWR oil will be
transported by tankers to refineries in Washington, California, and
Hawaii. The Oregon area ordinarily does not have the refining capacity.

The American Petroleum Institute estimates this would pump $4 billion
almost directly into the U.S. economy and would create 2,000
construction jobs in the U.S. shipbuilding industry and approximately
3,000 other jobs.
The API predicts this would compute to more than ``90,000 job-
years,'' by estimating that it will take almost 5,000 employees
approximately 17 years to build the ships necessary to transport this
oil.
They predict one ship must be built each year for 17 years in order
to coincide with the schedule for retiring the existing tankers.
To me, this sounds like stimulus. It sounds like a stimulus for
creating jobs in shipyards, many of which have been hurting for some
time.
Another issue is the alleged opposition by Gwich'ins. Most of the
Gwich'ins, we know, live in Canada. I am aware some of them live in the
Arctic village areas, with a population of roughly 117 people. They
fear that the caribou that they depend on for subsistence will be
decimated. They fear the caribou might take a different migration
drive, perhaps further from their village; that it would be harder for
them to hunt the 300 to 350 they kill each year.
But, first, there is no evidence that the oil development--with the
strict controls proposed to prevent disruption during the June-July
calving season of the Arctic Porcupine herd, to reduce noise, and to
control surface effects--will harm the herd.
I have a picture in the Chamber that shows some caribou activity in
Prudhoe Bay. I will give you a comparison. Experience over the past 26
years in Prudhoe Bay, where the herd has more than tripled in size and
where the caribou calves----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alaska in morning
business has expired.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I request as much time as I need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, as I announced earlier
today, we need to complete our business by 1:15 today because of the
problem at the Dirksen Building. The majority leader wishes to give a
presentation prior to that time. So if the Senator would maybe take
another 10 minutes, would that be appropriate?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We are in morning business, and the limitation of time
in morning business is what?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The limitation is 10 minutes for each Senator
in morning business.
Mr. REID. I know you just barely exceeded that.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We were talking about 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. Yes, we did 15, that is right.
I see Senator Baucus, who wishes to give a statement, is in the
Chamber.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was under the impression we would have plenty of
opportunity to discuss this today. Might I inquire when we are coming
in Monday?
Mr. REID. We can come in as early as you would like. Two o'clock.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. How about 1 o'clock?
Mr. REID. Would you need more time on Monday than that?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. One o'clock would be agreeable because what you are
telling me now is basically that I am out of time for today.
Mr. REID. Yes. Right. I would be happy to talk to the majority
leader. I am sure we could work that out.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am a little disappointed because I think we are
being kind of squeezed on time on this issue.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alaska, if you want to come in
earlier than 1 o'clock, I would be happy to talk to him. We are not
trying to squeeze out anybody. They are closing the Dirksen Building.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Dirksen Building will be closed at 4 o'clock?
Mr. REID. Yes.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Why don't we come in at noon?
Mr. REID. I will do my best. We will do our best. We have presiders,
and all that. We will come in earlier than 2 o'clock, for sure.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for another 10 minutes.
Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. REID. I think that will be fine. I say to my friend from Alaska,
we certainly are not trying to cut off anybody's right. I don't know
how much time the Senator has had, but quite a bit. I understand how
fervently he feels and how important this is to the State of Alaska, so
we want to make sure that you have all the time you need prior to our
voting at 5 o'clock on Monday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. My understanding is, they will do their best to try to
see that we come in at noon. I thank the Chair and thank the majority
whip.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have talked a little bit this morning about the
``Serengeti.'' Let me tell you where the ``Serengeti'' of Alaska is. It
is another

[[Page S12237]]

area where all the lakes are, and it is hardly a ``Serengeti'' because
the Coastal Plain is all the same.
But if you look over at the naval petroleum reserve, that is the area
with all the lakes with the concentration of birds. It is not within
the 1002 area. That is another misleading argument that is continually
thrown out.
The other one is that it will take as long as 10 years before ANWR
oil is flowing. What they forget is the realization that we already
have a good deal of the infrastructure. We have the pipeline. We only
need a 70-mile line from the coastal area into the pipeline. And it is
suggested once the leases are put up for sale, they will have
construction activity in about 18 months.
But more important is the national situation. I am going to close
with a reference to that because I think it deserves more of a
recognition because of the sensitivity of where we are internationally.
We are importing a little over a million barrels a day from Saddam
Hussein. There is no question that there is a great deal of concern as
a consequence of the relationship we have had with Saddam Hussein. We
fought a war not so long ago. It is kind of interesting to reflect on
some of the particulars associated with what happens when we become so
dependent. We have heard Saddam Hussein in every speech saying ``death
to America.'' He also says ``death to Israel,'' one of our greatest
allies over there. Recognizing that he can generate a substantial cash
flow by our continued dependence, one wonders why it is in the national
interest of our country to allow ourselves to be become so dependent on
that source.
I also wish to highlight an article excerpted from the Wall Street
Journal of November 28, which kind of sets, unfortunately, the partisan
setting this matter is in. I will read from it. It is entitled
``President Daschle.''

This is at a time when we were being terrorized in New York and at
the Pentagon.
Furthermore, on the 1.2 million barrels of oil a day we are getting
from Iraq, whom we soon may be fighting--imagine that, fighting Iraq
and we are talking about not passing an energy bill--the 1.2 million
barrels per month is the highest rate of imports since before Saddam
Hussein invaded Kuwait.
Continuing from the article:
But Mr. Daschle is blocking a vote precisely because he
knows Alaskan oil drilling has the votes to pass; earlier
this autumn he pulled the bill from Senator Jeff Bingaman's
Energy Committee when he saw it had the votes. So much for
the new spirit of Beltway cooperation.
We're not so naive as to think that war will, or should,
end partisan disagreement. But what's striking now is that
Mr. Daschle is letting his liberal Old Bulls break even the
agreements they've already made with the White House. Mr.
Bush shook hands weeks ago on an Oval Office education deal
with Teddy Kennedy, but now we hear that Mr. Kennedy wants
even more spending before he'll sign on. Mr. Daschle is
letting Ted have his way.
The same goes for the $686 billion annual spending limit
that Democrats struck with Mr. Bush after September 11.

I will not refer to the rest of the article, but it simply says that
what we are seeing here is a conscious effort by the majority not to
allow us to have a clean up-or-down vote on the issue.
As we wind up today's debate, I encourage my colleagues to think a
little bit about their obligation on these votes. Is it their
obligation to respond to the extreme environmental community that has
lobbied this so hard, that regards this as an issue to milk with all
the authorities, somewhat like a cash cow, and are going to continue to
use it? This bill covers reducing the demand, increasing the supply,
and it enhances infrastructure and energy security.
I ask unanimous consent that the article in the Wall Street Journal
of November 28 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

President Daschle

One of the more amusing Washington themes of late has been
the alleged revival of the Imperial Presidency, with George
W. Bush said to be wielding vast, unprecedented powers. Too
bad no one seems to have let Senate Majority Leader Tom
Daschle in on this secret.
Because from where we sit Mr. Daschle is the politician
wielding by far the most Beltway clout, and in spectacularly
partisan fashion. The South Dakotan's political strategy is
obvious if cynical: He's wrapping his arms tight around a
popular President on the war and foreign policy, but on the
domestic front he's conducting his own guerrilla war against
Mr. Bush, blocking the President's agenda at every turn. And
so far he's getting away with it.
Mr. Bush has asked Congress to pass three main items before
it adjourns for the year: Trade promotion authority, and
energy and economic stimulus bills. Mr. Daschle has so far
refused to negotiate on any of them, and on two he won't even
allow votes. Instead he is moving ahead with a farm bill (see
below) the White House opposes, and a railroad retirement
bill that is vital to no one but the AFL-CIO.
Just yesterday Mr. Daschle announced that ``I don't know
that we'll have the opportunity'' to call up an energy bill
until next year. One might think that after September 11 U.S.
energy production would be a war priority. In September alone
the U.S. imported 1.2 million barrels of oil a day from Iraq,
which we soon may be fighting, the highest rate since just
before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.
But Mr. Daschle is blocking a vote precisely because he
knows Alaskan oil drilling has the votes to pass; earlier
this autumn he pulled the bill from Senator Jeff Bingaman's
Energy Committee when he saw it had the votes. So much for
the new spirit of Beltway cooperation.
We're not so naive as to think that war will, or should,
end partisan disagreement. But what's striking now is that
Mr. Daschle is letting his liberal Old Bulls break even the
agreements they've already made with the White House. Mr.
Bush shook hands weeks ago on an Oval Office education deal
with Teddy Kennedy, but now we hear that Mr. Kennedy wants
even more spending before he'll sign on. Mr. Daschle is
letting Ted have his way.
The same goes for the $686 billion annual spending limit
that Democrats struck with Mr. Bush after September 11.
That's a 7% increase from a year earlier (since padded by a
$40 billion bipartisan addition), and Democrats made a
public fanfare that Mr. Bush had endorsed this for fear
some Republicans might use it against them in next year's
elections. But now Mr. Daschle is using the issue against
Mr. Bush, refusing to even discuss an economic stimulus
bill unless West Virginia Democrat Bob Byrd gets his
demand for another $15 billion in domestic spending.
Mr. Byrd, a former majority leader who thinks of Mr.
Daschle as his junior partner, may even attach his wish list
to the Defense spending bill. That would force Mr. Bush to
either veto and forfeit much needed money for defense, or
sign it and swallow Mr. Byrd's megapork for Amtrak and
Alaskan airport subsidies.
All of this adds to the suspicion that Mr. Daschle is only
too happy to see no stimulus bill at all. He knows the party
holding the White House usually gets most of the blame for a
bad economy, so his Democrats can pad their Senate majority
next year by blaming Republicans. This is the same strategy
that former Democratic leader George Mitchell pursued in
blocking a tax cut during the early 1990s and then blaming
George H.W. Bush for the recession. Mr. Mitchell's
consigliere at the time? Tom Daschle.
It is certainly true that Republicans have often helped Mr.
Daschle's guerrilla campaign. Alaska's Ted Stevens is Bob
Byrd's bosom spending buddy; he's pounded White House budget
director Mitch Daniels for daring to speak the truth about
his pork. And GOP leader Trent Lott contributed to the
airline-security rout by letting his Members run for cover.
The issue now is whether Mr. Bush will continue to let
himself get pushed around. Mr. Daschle is behaving badly
because he's assumed the President won't challenge him for
fear of losing bipartisan support on the war. But this makes
no political sense: As long as Mr. Bush's war management is
popular, Mr. Daschle isn't about to challenge him on foreign
affairs.
The greater risk to Mr. Bush's popularity and success isn't
from clashing with the

[[Page S12238]]

Daschle Democrats over tax cuts or oil drilling. It's from
giving the impression that on everything but the war, Tom
Daschle might as well be President.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill,
which is H.R. 4, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Summary--H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001

H.R. 4 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
reduces energy demand, increases energy supply, and enhances
our energy infrastructure and energy security.

Reduced Demand

Reauthorizes federal energy conservation programs and
directs the federal government to take leadership in energy
conservation with new energy savings goals.
Expands Federal Energy Savings Performance Contracting
authority.
Increases Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
(LIHEAP), Weatherization and State Energy Program
authorization levels to meet needs of low-income Americans.
Expands the EPA/DOE Energy Star program and directs the EPA
and DOE to determine whether Energy Star label should extend
to additional products.
Directs DOE to set standards for appliance ``standby mode''
energy use.
Reduces light truck fuel consumption by 5 billion gallons
over six years.
Improves Federal fleet fuel economy, expands use of hybrid
vehicles.
Increases funding for DOE's energy conservation and energy
efficiency R&D programs.
Expands HUD programs to promote energy efficient single and
multi-family housing.

Increased Supply

Provides for environmentally-sensitive oil and gas
exploration on Arctic Coastal Plain.
Authorizes new oil and gas R&D for unconventional and
ultra-deepwater production.
Royalty relief incentives for deepwater leases in the
central and western gulf of Mexico.
Streamlines administration of oil and gas leases on Federal
lands.
Authorizes DOE to develop accelerated Clean Coal Power
Initiative.
Establishes alternative fuel vehicle and Green School Bus
demonstration programs.
Reduces royalty rate for development of geothermal energy
and expedites leasing.
Provides for regular assessment of renewable energy
resources and impediments to use.
Streamlines licensing process for hydroelectric dams and
encourages increased output.
Provides new authorization for fossil, nuclear, hydrogen,
biomass, and renewable R&D.

Enhanced Infrastructure Energy Security

Sets goals for reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil
and Iraqi oil imports.
Initiates review of existing rights-of-ways and federal
lands for energy potential.
Directs DOE to implement R&D and demonstrate use of
distributed energy resources.
Invests in new transmission infrastructure R&D program to
ensure reliable electricity.
Requires study of boutique fuel issues to minimize refinery
bottlenecks, supply shortages.
Initiates study of potential for renewable transportation
fuels to displace oil imports.
Offers scholarships to train the next generation of energy
workers.
Prohibits pipelines from being placed on national register
of historic places.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Finally, I hope as Members reflect on their
responsibility, they recognize that we are at war. This war may expand
and extend itself. The continued exposure based on our dependence on
imported oil and the likelihood that the flow of oil imports might be
disrupted mandates that we have an energy policy and that we have it
done in a timely manner. Let's recognize the obligation that we have in
voting on this. Is it a vote to respond to the demands of America's
environmental community, or is it a vote to do what is right for
America?
We have already lost two sailors as a consequence of our dependence
on oil from Iraq. I don't want to stand before this body and say I told
you so, but if we don't pass an energy bill that will reduce our
dependence on Iraqi oil, we are doing our country a grave injustice. It
is contrary to the majority of public opinion in this country. Seventy-
six percent of public say we should be taking up and passing an energy
bill over any other bill. That includes the farm bill and the Railroad
Retirement Act. If we ever get to the stimulus, I hope somebody would
search their minds and memories to see if they can come up with a
better stimulus than the proposal associated withholding up ANWR.
I am somewhat disappointed we were not able to have more time today.
Hopefully, the leadership can work out coming in at noon on Monday.
I thank the Chair for its courtesy. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

____________________