[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14042-S14044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                                 ENERGY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the remarks of 
the majority leader. He indicated that we should have passed a farm 
bill. We should have passed an energy bill as well, Mr. President. 
Unfortunately, the majority leader did not mention that.
  I think it is fitting to once again discuss the priorities that were 
laid before this body by our President--trade promotion, stimulus, 
energy legislation.
  So as we look at where we are in the Senate today, clearly, we have 
not been responsive to our very popular President, nor have we been 
very responsive to the Nation. Indeed, we labored several days on the 
farm bill. Some have suggested that perhaps it is easier to address the 
extended benefits associated with that farm bill than the realities 
associated with our increased dependence on foreign oil.
  As I look at the session we have just completed, I think many of my 
colleagues would agree that as we look at the completion of the year 
and the realization that we are coming back next year, we should review 
in some detail just what progress has been made relative to the 
priorities that were laid by our President before this body.
  When this Congress began, I introduced a comprehensive bipartisan 
energy measure with the senior Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Breaux. 
Later, the ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senator Bingaman, 
along with Senator Daschle, introduced legislation that touched on many 
issues that were covered in our bill. That was March.
  Shortly thereafter, Senator Daschle indicated that those problems, 
and more, demonstrate the overwhelming need for a new and comprehensive 
energy policy. America is faced with a grave energy policy that will 
get worse if we do not act. Prior to the Memorial Day recess, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources had almost completed its 
hearing schedule and we were discussing dates to mark up comprehensive 
energy legislation. Again, the majority leader was supportive. On May 
16, he stated:

       The problem needs comprehensive attention and the problem 
     needs bipartisan solutions. We are concerned about the lack 
     of consultation to date. There has been none. There doesn't 
     appear to be any real sense of urgency here.

  I find that a rather curious statement since the only bipartisan 
measure remained one that I had introduced with Senator Breaux of 
Louisiana, and I was receiving complaints about how aggressive was the 
hearing schedule we were holding.
  In May, we received the administration's comprehensive national 
energy policy, and both the Senate and the House began to prepare for 
debate on comprehensive, bipartisan, national security energy 
legislation. We were pressured, perhaps, because the House had done its 
job. It had reported out its bill, H.R. 4, the energy bill. I stated 
that I was committed to bringing a bipartisan measure out of the Energy 
Committee in time for the debate prior to the July 4 recess.
  Then, of course, we had a little change of control here, and our 
current majority leader didn't seem quite as anxious or concerned with 
energy legislation. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
rather than proceeding to a markup, either on my bipartisan measure or 
the new chairman's more limited bill, suddenly began to repeat 
hearings--in one case, hearings from the same witnesses who had 
appeared before us only a few weeks previously.
  The majority leader still indicated a willingness to proceed even if 
it did not have the same sense of urgency. So on July 31, the majority 
leader stated:

       The Democratic caucus is very supportive of finding ways 
     with which to pursue additional energy production. I think 
     production has to be part of any comprehensive energy policy.

  This was encouraging since the only bipartisan bill that I had 
introduced included significant domestic production.
  In retrospect, we all should have known that when the majority leader 
got around to finally introducing energy legislation, as he did several 
weeks ago, the only production that he would be supporting would be, 
evidently, foreign production from Iran and elsewhere in the OPEC 
nations, and the only jobs and economic stimulus created would be in 
Canada, as he indicated support for a pipeline, not specifying the 
route and as a consequence, obviously favoring the alternative in 
Canada, which is very much opposed by my colleagues, Senator Stevens, 
Representative Young, and the Governor of the State of Alaska.
  My point is, in their legislation they left the route selection 
neutral, and this is the one favored by the Canadians. On August 1 and 
2, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources finally began 
consideration of research and development provisions of energy 
legislation. The majority leader even announced on August 1:

       There is a great deal of interest in our caucus in moving a 
     comprehensive energy bill in the early part of the fall. The 
     Energy Committee is going to be completing its work about 
     mid-September.

  He was certainly correct in stating the Energy Committee would be 
completing its work in mid-September, but little did we know what he 
meant was that he intended to shut down the committee and prevent us 
from reporting comprehensive bipartisan energy legislation.
  When we returned in September and our schedule then continued to 
slide, the majority leader once again said on September 6:

       I have indicated all along that it is our hope and 
     expectation to bring up energy before the end of the session, 
     and that is still my intention.

  Like Charlie Brown, once again we believed that Lucy would not pull 
the football away, but that was not the case. But it was fall and it 
was football season, and the majority leader finally pulled the plug on 
the pretense of concern.
  It has always been clear that a bipartisan majority of the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources has been ready and willing to report 
comprehensive legislation with a balance of conservation efficiencies, 
research and development, and domestic production.
  When we on both sides of the aisle stated and indicated our intent to 
press for a firm schedule to report the legislation, then the majority 
leader, which in my opinion was in defiance of the rules of the Senate 
and of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, simply shut the 
Energy Committee down.
  I have been around here 21 years, Mr. President. I have never heard 
of that particular initiation by a majority leader of shutting a 
committee down.
  On October 9, without consultation or advance notice, the members of 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources were told they were 
irrelevant and would not be allowed to consider any legislation for the 
remainder of the session.
  I read from a press release from the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Bingaman:

       At the request of the majority leader, Senator Daschle, the 
     Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Chairman Jeff 
     Bingaman, today suspended any further markup on energy 
     legislation for this session of Congress.

  I remind my colleagues, there is no provision in the Senate rules for 
the majority leader to abolish the work of a standing committee by 
edict. That is what happened. The rules of the Senate require each 
committee to meet at least once a month before the Senate and while the 
Senate is in session to address the business of the committee.
  The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has not met in business 
session since August 2. The business of the committee is, among other 
things, energy. I wonder the reason for the reluctance of the majority 
leader. Was he fearful the Energy Committee might report bipartisan 
legislation, for certainly no amendment from this Senator or any other 
Republican could be reported without some support from the Democratic 
side. It is clear the Democrats control the committee by a 12-to-11 
ratio. I can only guess perhaps the majority leader would have been 
better off requiring the committee to approve any amendments perhaps by 
two-thirds of the Democratic members, as he seems to have set on other 
issues.
  It has now been 4\1/2\ months since the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources has held a business meeting, and we are no closer to 
consideration of comprehensive legislation than we were when the 
majority leader assumed control of the Senate.
  The majority leader has indicated and has finally introduced a 
warmed-

[[Page S14043]]

over version of the legislation that he cosponsored almost 9 months 
ago. The majority leader has again perhaps indicated that he intends to 
move energy legislation if there is time. Clearly, there is no more 
time. This is it. We are out.
  On the other hand, he has indicated a willingness when we return to 
take up energy sometime in January or February. Now we hear we are 
going to go back to an Agriculture bill. We have asked the majority 
leader to give us an indication of his willingness to take up a bill 
and give us an up-or-down vote on it, but the indications are we are 
going to have to have 60 votes.
  It is extraordinary that this body in times of national security and 
the tremendous activity associated with the Mideast, the OPEC nations, 
Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, as we look to those areas for our security 
interests, would have to have a dictate, but 51 votes on the issue will 
not do it. We are going to need 60 votes.
  We are going to get those 60 votes if that is what it takes, but I do 
not know of another time when the national energy security of the 
Nation was at risk requiring more than 50 votes. A simple majority 
evidently will not do.
  Let me make it clear to the majority leader--and I have the greatest 
respect for him--I am prepared to come back and spend day after day, 
night after night debating an energy policy in this Senate and get the 
job done. This is a priority of our President, a priority of our 
Nation, a priority of our veterans, and a priority of our labor groups.
  A few weeks ago both the President and Vice President called for the 
Senate to end this partisan charade and address energy legislation.
  The President said in a radio address not so long ago:

       Last spring, I sent to Congress a comprehensive energy plan 
     that encourages conservation and greater energy independence. 
     The House has acted. The Senate has not.

  The President of the United States is correct. Rather than a spirited 
debate on comprehensive energy legislation, reported from the Energy 
Committee, developed in an open process, the majority leader has 
savaged the reforms of the 1970s to craft partisan legislation behind 
closed doors with only selected special interests allowed to 
participate.
  There is a process to get advice from members of the Energy 
Committee, and that is in a business meeting. When the majority leader 
says his legislation represents input from the Energy Committee, he is 
not being accurate. Make no mistake, the Energy Committee has had no 
input on this legislation that has been introduced by the majority 
leader. I accept that the bulk of the bill was drafted by our 
committee, but the chairman is not the committee, and it is clear 
neither he nor our majority leader evidently trusts the makeup of the 
committee to address it in a bipartisan manner and vote it out.
  The reforms of the 1970s were designed precisely to curb the 
dictatorial powers of committee chairmen, as our distinguished 
President pro tempore noted in his history of the Senate.
  The Vice President hit the nail on the head a few weeks ago in his 
discussion with Tim Russert on ``Meet the Press'' when he said:

       But there is a disagreement with respect to Senator Daschle 
     on energy. The House of Representatives has moved and passed 
     an energy bill last summer. The Senate has not acted. Tom 
     pulled it out of the Energy Committee so they are not 
     considering in committee an energy bill at this point. The 
     House has passed a stimulus package. The Senate has yet to 
     act. The House just passed trade promotion authority. The 
     Senate has yet to act. In the energy area, it is 
     extraordinarily important that we move for energy security, 
     energy independence. We are never going to get all the way 
     over to energy independence, but given the volatility of the 
     Mideast and our increasing dependence on that part of the 
     world for oil, it is important we go forward, for example, 
     with things like ANWR.

  I am embarrassed at the lack of action of this body as we conclude 
this year in not having taken up an energy bill. I grant the farm bill 
is important, but the farm bill is not about to expire. We do not have 
an energy bill in this country. We should have an energy bill.
  I assume the majority leader will continue to find items he thinks 
are more important than our national energy security. We have seen it: 
Railroad retirement, raising the price of milk to consumers through 
dairy compacts. As I indicated, next year we are going to address this 
issue and we will seek votes on the issue. I do not believe, on behalf 
of our constituents, we should duck these difficult decisions. I know 
the majority leader shares those views as well.
  Some time ago, this body voted to initiate sanctions on Iran and some 
other nations in the Mideast that produce oil because we were not 
satisfied with their record of human rights, we were not satisfied with 
their record of full disclosure relative to the development of weapons 
of mass destruction. I proposed an amendment to include Iraq. At the 
time during the debate, the majority leader committed to me he would at 
some time give me an up-or-down vote.
  I have communicated with the majority leader and asked him for the 
up-or-down vote. I have not received a response. I hope I will receive 
a response very soon because I think it is important to recognize the 
situation with regard to Iraq. We know Saddam Hussein is developing 
weapons of mass destruction. We have evidence of that, even though we 
have not had a U.N. inspector in that country for some time. We know he 
smuggled the oil.
  Many Americans perhaps do not recognize we are importing nearly a 
million barrels of oil a day from Saddam Hussein, yet we are enforcing 
a no-fly zone over that country. We are putting the lives of many of 
our young men and women at risk.
  What is he attempting to do? He is attempting to shoot down our 
aircraft. He has almost succeeded, but it almost seems as though we 
take his oil, put it in our aircraft, enforce the no-fly zone, which is 
like an air wall blockade. What does he do with our money? He pays the 
Republican Army, develops a weapons capability, a biological 
capability, and aims it at our ally Israel. It is beyond me why this 
Nation and our foreign policy should rely on Saddam Hussein and Iraq 
for our energy needs when we have the capability at home.
  Finally, I think it is interesting to reflect on where we are in the 
economic stimulus. We could not reach a conclusion. Yet our economy is 
in recession. We need a stimulus. It would help get us back on the 
right track.
  The discussions have focused on this for some time. We have talked 
about ``immediate.'' We have talked about ``temporary.'' We have talked 
about the creation of jobs, increasing consumer spending or otherwise 
increasing domestic product. I think we make a big mistake if we only 
focus on those stimulus ideas that are of a temporary nature. We should 
also focus on stimulus elements that will ensure the long-term economic 
growth of our country. Otherwise, we will have to come to the Senate at 
the end of each economic cycle and perhaps have this debate over again.
  One such permanent stimulus would be the establishment of a national 
energy strategy that ensures energy prices that remain constant, 
affordable, reliable sources of energy which play an important role in 
fostering economic growth and development.
  We have seen high prices. We have seen sectors of our economy. We 
have seen the situation in California. We have seen increasing costs. 
We have seen the development in the OPEC countries of a cartel where, 
when they want the price to go up, they decrease the supply.
  High energy prices reduce consumer disposable income, reduce 
spending, and inhibit economic growth. Our friend Martin Feldstein, the 
former Chairman of the Council on Economic Advisers, noted since the 
end of World War II economic downturns have coincided with energy price 
increases. This most recent economic downturn is no exception. We have 
seen a rapid increase in oil prices occurring the first half of this 
year, followed by similar increases in natural gas and electricity.
  The result of data from the Bureau of Economic Statistics shows that 
while the GDP grew at 5.7 percent in the second quarter of 2000, the 
most recent data showed the GDP has declined by 1.1 percent for the 
third quarter. So I think we acknowledge we are in a recession.
  This is consistent with findings of the National Bureau of Economic 
Research that, on an average, for every 10 percent increase in oil 
prices, economic output falls by 2.5 percent, real wages

[[Page S14044]]

drop by 1 percent, and increases in oil prices reduce the number of 
hours worked and increase unemployment.
  We recall what has happened over a period of time, and as a 
consequence of that we could generalize that high prices for energy and 
natural gas cause significant impacts on those sectors of our economy 
that do not depend on oil.
  America and the world move on oil. We have other sources of energy 
for electricity. We have seen impacts across the board. Energy spending 
by American families increased by nearly 30 percent in 2000. Heating 
bills tripled for many Americans, particularly in the Northeast. Small 
businesses had a great increase in costs associated with energy. We 
have seen this. Thousands of jobs were lost. These high energy prices 
were the result of one unavoidable fact: Our energy supplies failed to 
meet our growing energy demands.
  For 10 years following the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, 
U.S. demand for energy increased over 17 percent, while total energy 
production increased only 2.3 percent. By the end of last year, we had 
simply run out of fuel for the sputtering American economy. That has 
changed as a consequence of the tragedy of September 11, but it will 
not stay that way. OPEC will initiate the cartel to again decrease 
supplies.

  We have seen what happened to our economy as a consequence of energy 
price increases. We know a national energy strategy that balances 
supply and demand could reduce threats and future recessions. Alan 
Greenspan noted on November 13:

       As economic policymakers understand the focus on the impact 
     of the tragedy of September 11 and the further weakening of 
     the economy that follows these events, it is essential that 
     we do not lose sight of policies needed to ensure long-term 
     economic growth.
       One of the most important objectives for those policies 
     should be assured availability of energy.

  As a consequence, the U.S. relies on foreign imported oil with more 
than one-half of its petroleum needs. Much of this comes from the 
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait.
  Consider the consequences of the oil embargo in 1973. At the time, 
tensions ran high in the Middle East. Then we were involved in the war 
on terrorism.
  It makes sense to consider our energy security in the context of an 
economic stimulus package. We have not done that. It makes sense to 
ensure our economic security by ensuring the availability of affordable 
energy supplies.
  One aspect we have not considered in this equation is the 
contribution of ANWR. Talking about stimulus, there is hardly any 
single item we could have come up with that would have been a more 
significant and genuine stimulus package than opening ANWR in my State 
of Alaska.
  What would it have done? It would have created $3.3 billion in 
Federal bonuses, money that would have come in from the Federal 
Treasury as a consequence of leasing off Federal land. This would have 
been paid for by competitive bidding by the oil companies. It was a 
jobs issue. It would have created 250,000 new jobs in this country.
  The contribution of the steel industry is extremely significant, as 
well. We have a stimulus package not even considered in the debate 
because we could not have a debate. We did not have an energy bill.
  It would have created 250,000 new jobs and $3.3 billion in new 
Federal bid bonuses. And the bottom line is, not a red penny by the 
taxpayer. That is the kind of stimulus we need in this country.
  As we look at the end of the year, we have to recognize the 
obligation that we have to come back and do a better job. We need an 
energy bill. We need it quickly. We need a stimulus in this country. We 
could and should consider a genuine stimulus that results in jobs that 
do not cost the taxpayer money, and as a consequence spurs the economy.
  I hope as we address our New Year's resolutions we can recognize the 
House has done its job in energy legislation. We did not do our job in 
the Senate. I am very disappointed. I am sure the President and the 
American public shares that disappointment.
  We have not been honest with the American people because we have a 
crisis in energy. Our national security is at risk. We are risking the 
lives of men and women in the Middle East over this energy crisis. We 
should address it here and relieve that dependence.
  I wish all a happy and joyous holiday season, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to ask the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama, Mr. Sessions, how long he will be speaking. The reason I ask, 
I know the Presiding Officer has an engagement. He has to leave within 
another 20 minutes, from what I understand.
  How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Twelve minutes would be sufficient.
  Mr. BYRD. Let me deliver my speech. I ask unanimous consent, am I 
correct that the Presiding Officer needs to leave the Presiding Chair 
no later than 7:45, or is it 7:50?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 7:50.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama may proceed for not to exceed 12 minutes and I will do 
something not often done around here; I do it quite often. I wait and 
wait and wait, realizing I can get recognition almost any time I want, 
but I am usually willing to accommodate another Senator, even if that 
Senator is on the Republican side. Not many will accommodate me in that 
fashion, but I am glad to accommodate them.
  I ask consent that the Senator from Alabama have not to exceed, say, 
10 minutes, after which I be recognized, and that mine be the last 
speech of the day. I don't mind relieving the Senator in the Chair, so 
I will ask that the Senator from Alabama go ahead of me.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I am delighted to follow the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I want to make my speech about Christmas in the main. We 
refer to this as a holiday. It is not a holiday to me. This is 
Christmas, which is something different. It marks the greatest event 
that ever occurred in the history of man. It split the centuries in 
two. There is B.C. and there is A.D. It was a tremendous event. I 
believe in Christ. I am a Christian--not a very worthy one, but a 
Christian. I respect those who are of a different religion. I respect 
those who believe that Christ was a historic figure but not the 
Messiah, but a prophet. That is all right. They have a right to believe 
that.
  Both would agree that it was a tremendous event. This is something 
beyond just being a holiday. When someone wishes me happy holidays, I 
say: No, Happy Christmas.
  I want to make a statement about Christmas, so I ask unanimous 
consent the Senator from Alabama proceed for 10 minutes and I follow 
him.
  I ask the question of the minority, while I am on the floor, Is there 
an intention on that side of the aisle to seek unanimous consent by 
Senator Brownback? If there is still the intention to make that 
request, I want to be here to object to it; if there is not, I may go 
on my way happy.
  I make that consent and I will see to it that the Chair gets relief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________