[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 165 (Monday, December 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S12299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me again reflect on where I think
we are. We have chosen to try to get an energy bill before this body
all year. We introduced an energy bill late in January in the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee. Hearings were held. We had a little
change of leadership that resulted in a situation where we could not
get the bill brought up in committee. In the meantime, of course, the
House of Representatives did its work. It passed H.R. 4, which was an
energy bill. It was a good energy bill. It had virtually everything
that we felt should be addressed in the body of the bill because it
addressed, if you will, not only renewables but alternatives, as well
as new sources of energy.
H.R. 4 is the bill that is before us right now, but it is coupled
with a cloning bill, and it is on a railroad retirement bill. But I
think we should focus on the reality here, which is that the President
has asked for an energy bill. The House has done its job. The Senate
has yet to do its job.
The ultimate disposition of this vote today is not going to be very
meaningful because different Members are going to be able to respond in
different ways. Those who are particularly attuned to the cloning
issue, obviously--and I share the position of Senator Brownback that we
should not be rushing into this. There should be some evaluation on its
ethical and moral aspects. On the other hand, the fact that it is on
the railroad retirement bill, which I happen to support, means there is
going to be different interpretations--whether the vote is contrary to
support for railroad retirement, support for energy, or support for
cloning.
I want to focus on the void that will be left after we are through.
We are not going to be able to have resolved getting an energy bill up
before the Senate. So we are going to have to search for other means,
whether it be the Agriculture bill or stimulus bill or holding up a
unanimous consent agreement, which I am prepared to do. We have talked
about Christmas Eve, about the stockings, and odds and ends; but we
have no assurance that the Democratic leadership which controls this
body is going to give us a time certain to take up an energy bill and
vote up or down on it. That is within the broad support of America's
special interest groups--whether it be the labor unions that we have
heard from relative to the value of it as a stimulus, or others.
Mr. President, when we look at stimulus bills, where are you going to
find a better stimulus? It would create 250,000 jobs, generating $3
billion in revenues from lease sales, and would not cost the taxpayer a
dime. What about the national security interests and America's veterans
who fought overseas? I am reminded of my good friend from Oregon who
indicated that he would rather vote for an ANWR bill any day than send
our men and women overseas to fight a war over oil. That was Senator
Mark Hatfield.
So the President has called for an energy bill. We are disregarding
our popular President's wish in not addressing it. We have heard from
the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the
Secretary of Labor, who all recognize the importance of this. The
Democratic leadership says, no; we are not going to take it up. We are
going to take it up later. When? Will he give us a time certain to
conclude it and allow amendments and an up-or-down vote? That is all we
want.
What is happening here is they are talking on, if you will, the
prevailing attitude of America's veterans, organized labor, Teamsters,
senior organizations, Jewish organizations, who all understand what
national security is all about in relation to the Mideast. We have a
bill--H.R. 4--that reduces demand, increases supply, and enhances
infrastructure and energy security. So we are very positive. Yet we are
going to go out of here today with another situation where we have not
reached a resolve. We have talked about energy, and if there is any
plus to this, it is that we got the energy bill up for discussion but
in such a convoluted way that it is very difficult to address it on the
merits for on an up-or-down, clean vote, which it deserves.
The Democratic leadership has chosen to ignore, if you will, the
responsibility that this body has to address a request of the
President. We are going to go off now and simply look for another day.
Well, I am going to look for another day. I don't want to disrupt the
body, but I am telling you that we have to have assurances that we are
going to get an energy bill up, under some time agreement of some
consequence that would be meaningful to dispose of the issue once and
for all. Any Member can justify his vote today, not on the issue of an
up-or-down vote on energy but on cloning or his particular position on
the issue of railroad retirement.
We need to have the Members stand up and be counted on whether or not
it is in our national security interest to have an energy bill and have
an up-or-down vote and have amendments and include, if you will, the
ANWR issue.
This isn't a vote on an energy bill today. It is not a vote on ANWR.
This is a vote to address a procedural process that is very gray in the
interpretation because nobody is going to be able to clearly define
just what they are for and what they are against.
I see my friend from Kansas who wants to speak on the cloning. We
have little time remaining. I will reserve 5 minutes of my remaining
time and allow Senator Brownback to have the difference.
I inquire of the time remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska has 11\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from
Kansas.
____________________