[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.

                          ____________________