[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1238-S1241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I will respond briefly to my good 
friend, Senator Dorgan. I totally agree with his concept that we should 
pursue ethanol and wind and all alternative sources of energy. We will 
need them. There is absolutely no question. We need all the energy we 
can produce in this country.

[[Page S1239]]

  The good news is the energy bill has been laid down. I hope we can 
start on this relatively soon. Clearly, we have to get the pending 
business resolved. I will discuss the foundation we begin with. It is a 
departure from the traditions of this body. It is unfortunate the 
majority leader has seen fit to mandate a procedure that is clearly 
contrary to the traditions of the process associated with the 
committees of jurisdiction. I am referring specifically, as former 
chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and now the 
ranking member, to the manner in which the majority leader saw fit to 
circumvent the responsibilities of the committee of jurisdiction.
  My good friend, the chairman, Senator Bingaman, and I have worked 
together for some time. We have had a good relationship. Our theory was 
we would attempt to develop from the committee process a comprehensive 
energy bill. When I was chairman, we had hearings, we had input, and we 
introduced a bill. However, as we all are aware, there was a change in 
June. As a consequence, the Republicans lost control of the Senate and 
hence lost control of the agenda of the committee process.
  Prior to the changeover, we had had several discussions in the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee on various issues associated with the 
proposed energy legislation. This came about as a consequence of our 
President laying down as one of his prerequisites a mandate that 
Congress address an energy bill and do it with dispatch. The House has 
done its job in H.R. 4. So it became the responsibility of the Senate 
to take up a comprehensive energy bill.

  What happened in the process deserves enlightenment. This is what I 
specifically object to. On the issue of ANWR, we had enough bipartisan 
votes to report out a bill containing ANWR. The leader knew this. As a 
consequence, in order to circumvent this process, the terminology I 
think that was used was to alleviate any differences of opinion in the 
process. However, that is what this body is all about, differences of 
opinion in coming together on a consensus. Nonetheless, the leader 
prevailed and ordered the chairman, Senator Bingaman, not to hold any 
markups on the bill. That precluded the committee from pursuing a 
process of taking up a bill, proceeding with amendments in the ordinary 
workings of the committee process, and voting out and bringing to the 
floor a comprehensive bill.
  I can only assume the leader did this as a parliamentary maneuver to 
ensure we would not get a vote in committee on ANWR, where he clearly 
knew we had the votes to get it out. I hope every Senator in this body 
considers the precedent this action sets, particularly those Senators 
who value the traditions and open debate concept associated with this 
body. This is a departure. This is almost a dictate from the majority 
leader who simply says we are not going to allow the committee of 
jurisdiction to take up the bill and vote it out and bring it to the 
floor.
  That prevailed, and we have a situation where we are about to start 
debate on a very complex bill that has not gone through the committee 
process. What does this mean? This means every Member will be subjected 
to some very complex issues, those particularly associated with the 
electricity portion. They are not going to understand the terminology 
because it didn't go through the committee. There will be a lot of 
interest on behalf of various lobbyists who have different points of 
view relative to certain aspects, aspects that have never had a 
hearing, never had an opportunity for Members to express their views, 
let alone vote it out.
  I am very irate as a consequence of this circumvention of our 
responsibility, and I think every Senator should be. We should put 
politics aside and reflect on the traditions of this body which dictate 
this is not the way this body traditionally does business.
  Sure, the majority leader can initiate an action and go around the 
committee process, but is that the tradition of the Senate? Is that the 
tradition to circumvent the committees and the amendment process by 
subjecting this body now to a bill while it has not had hearings on 
many of the portions that are very complex?
  I know how the majority leader feels about ANWR, but I add one more 
observation. He has indicated if ANWR stays in the bill, he will pull 
the bill. That means regardless of how the Senate prevails in a 
democratic process, he will take the initiative to see that it will not 
happen. He has circumvented the committee process which requires--
instead of 51 votes--60 votes, on cloture, which he would, of course, 
file. Then he says if you get 60 votes, you are going to lose because 
he is going to pull the bill.
  I don't care what the issue is, but I suggest this is a poor way to 
do business. The Senate should reflect on just what is happening and 
whether we can support a leader who dictatorially initiates an action 
of this type. I know it makes many members of the committees feel 
somewhat at a loss: What are we here for if we are not here to conduct 
committee business in the course of our responsibility?
  As we start to consider this bill, we should continue to reflect on 
how we got there. We got there without a committee process. We got 
there as a consequence of the majority leader taking the authority away 
from the committee. We got a bill before the Senate that has not had a 
markup, it has not had individual hearings, and many of the portions of 
the bill, we are told, if we prevail on one, particularly the lightning 
rod of ANWR, we will lose anyway because he will pull the bill. I just 
want all parties to know that I object, and I know a number of my 
colleagues do, to this type of procedure.

  I want to refer to a couple of other points that I think are germane 
to the debate which is going to take place.
  For some time now we have been dependent on imported oil from Iraq. 
As a matter of fact, on September 11 we were importing a little over 1 
million barrels a day from that nation. We are enforcing a no-fly zone 
over that nation. We are putting the lives of our young men and women 
at risk enforcing that no-fly zone. Yet we are buying oil. It is almost 
as if we take the oil, put it in our airplanes, and go take out his 
targets.
  What does he do with the money he receives from the United States? He 
keeps his Republican Guard well fed. That keeps him alive. What else 
does he do? He develops a missile capability, a delivery capability, 
biological capability, and perhaps aimed at our ally, Israel.
  That is the fact associated with the vulnerability of this country as 
we increase our dependence on imported oil. We are about 58 percent 
dependent, and it is increasing. The Department of Energy says it is 
going to be up to 63 percent or 64 percent in the year 2006. What does 
that do to the vulnerability of the United States? It means we become 
more dependent on Iraq.
  What about Saudi Arabia? When we look at the terrorist activities in 
New York, we find most of the passports are from Saudi Arabia. It is a 
very unstable area, and we are becoming more and more dependent. Is it 
not in our national interest to reduce our dependence? The answer is 
clearly yes.
  Let me reflect on one more thing. We have not had an inspector in 
Iraq in several years, under the U.N. agreement. We don't know what 
Iraq is up to. But as we reflect on the terrors and tragedies that have 
already occurred in this Nation, we recognize we should have acted 
sooner. We knew who bin Laden was. We knew about al-Qaida. Yet we did 
not act, and we know the consequences. The consequences became evident 
on September 11.
  What day of reckoning is going to come when we have to face what 
Saddam Hussein has been up to? Will it be after the fact or will we 
mandate that our inspectors go in there and address this threat now? I 
know what my recommendation would be. It is better sooner than later; 
sooner to take out the terrorism risks associated with Saddam Hussein.
  I know this is something the administration is agonizing about and 
will be critical if, indeed, there is some action and we will not have 
taken action.
  This is what this issue is all about. It is about the national 
security of this country and our increased dependence. I do not know 
how many of my colleagues remember 1973-1974, the Yom Kippur War. Some 
of us are old enough to remember we had gas lines around the block. The 
public was outraged, they were inconvenienced.
  What was the result of that? We were 37 percent dependent on imported 
oil at

[[Page S1240]]

that time. Now we are 58 percent dependent. You figure it out. It is 
pretty easy. Our vulnerability has increased. Make no mistake about it, 
with the unrest in the Mideast we are going to have a crisis. I can 
tell you, every Member of this body will be standing in line behind me 
to open up ANWR. They will say we have to increase our domestic 
production.
  What is this bill anyway? Partially, as I have indicated, it is a 
bill in the national security interests of our country. I ask my 
colleagues, are they going to stand behind the environmental lobby, 
that has used this as a cash cow for membership and dollars? There is 
no evidence to suggest we can't open this area safely. This is my 
State. We support opening ANWR. We were there when the arguments in the 
1960s were prevailing against opening Prudhoe Bay and building an 800-
mile pipeline.

  Let me tell you what that has done. That has provided this Nation, 
for several years--it has been operating 27 years--for several years 
with 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country. That 
was about 2 million barrels a day. Today it is a little over 1 million 
barrels, a little over 20 percent.
  Where was that issue in the 1960s? That issue was before the Senate. 
It was a tie vote. The Vice President broke the tie, and it passed by 
one vote. That is how close it was. Where would we have been if we had 
not done that? Instead of 58 percent, we would probably be somewhere in 
the area of 68 percent dependent on imported oil.
  What were the arguments then? You are going to build an 800-mile 
pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It is going to be like a fence 
across Alaska, and the caribou and the moose are not going to cross it. 
It is going to have a terrible effect on the environment. You are 
putting a hot pipeline in permafrost, and when the hot pipeline melts 
the permafrost, it is going to break.
  It has been there 27 years, one of the construction wonders of the 
world. All the doomsayers' arguments then are the same arguments now: 
You can't do it safely; you can't protect the caribou.
  They are all false. Go up to Prudhoe Bay and you find the caribou 
herd is 27,000. It was 3,000 or 4,000 in the late 1960s.
  Talk about polar bear habitat--you can't shoot a polar bear in the 
United States, and Alaska is part of the United States. You can in 
Russia. You can in Canada.
  So as we reflect upon what we are about to embark, I encourage my 
colleagues and you, Madam President, to reflect on the prevailing 
arguments that were used 27 years ago and the prevailing arguments that 
we are using now. As I indicated, the argument then was a hot pipeline 
through permafrost; it was a fence across Alaska; it was whether or not 
we could do it safely; it was the caribou herd--all of which history 
has proven we have been able to do. We have overcome the problems and 
responsively addressed them.
  One can go up to Prudhoe Bay and get off the airplane and walk over 
to where the pickups are. Do you know what you see under every single 
pickup? You see a diaper. It is under the pan of the car. It is a big 
cotton thing to pick up a drop of oil that spills. As you know, in your 
own driveway you get drops of oil. That is the extent they go to, to 
try to maintain the maximum environmental oversight.
  As we address this ANWR issue, keep in mind the arguments of those 
opposed to it. They say it is a 6-month supply of oil. We all know that 
is only if you didn't have any oil produced in this country or any oil 
imported into this country. To what does it equate? We don't really 
know, but the latest USGS reports say 5.6 billion to 16 billion 
barrels. How does that compare with anything you and I can understand? 
You can compare it with what Prudhoe Bay has produced in 27 years. 
Prudhoe Bay was supposed to produce 10 billion barrels. It is on its 13 
billionth barrel now. If you took half of the range of ANWR, 5.6 and 
16, and said it was 10, it would be as big as Prudhoe Bay.
  The infrastructure is already in place. You have a pipeline 800 miles 
long that is only half full. This is not a big issue, in the sense of 
reality. Yes, it is a significant amount of oil, if it is 10 billion 
barrels. If it is 16, it is even better. But if it is 3.5, you will not 
even develop it because you have to have a major discovery in order to 
develop in the higher Arctic altitudes associated with drilling in that 
part of the world.
  It is either there in abundance--and it has to be to make a 
difference--or it isn't. They say it will take 10 years. Come on. If 
President Clinton had not vetoed the bill in 1995, it would be on line 
now. He vetoed it. Why? Same response: The environmental community 
pressured. The cash cow generates membership, it generates dollars. And 
they are milking it for all it is worth, and will continue until we 
prevail. Then they will go on to another issue.
  What about the Porcupine caribou? We have already addressed that with 
the caribou comparison in Prudhoe Bay, where they have flourished. As I 
indicated before, it was a short break.
  We don't shoot polar bear. You can't take trophy polar bear in 
Alaska. They are marine mammals, they are protected. If you want to 
protect the animals, you don't shoot them; you don't take them for 
food, or subsistence. There are very few taken for subsistence, I might 
add.
  These are some of the arguments we are going to be addressing.
  Furthermore, this is a big jobs bill. Find an issue that employs 
250,000 people. These are high-paying jobs. That is why the unions 
support it. It will generate somewhere in the area of $2.5 billion in 
Federal lease sales because these are Federal leases that will come 
back into the Treasury. It won't cost the taxpayers one red cent. Find 
a better stimulus.
  What about the veterans in this country? They are for it because they 
do not want to fight another war in a foreign country over oil.
  I am always reminded of my good friend, Mark Hatfield. He is a 
pacifist who said before this body time and time again, I will vote for 
opening this area any day rather than send a young man or woman 
overseas to fight in a war over oil in a foreign land.
  We talk about alternative energy. I indicated that I support it. But 
let me tell you about a little comparison. I have some graphs that will 
show this. One of the largest wind farms in the United States is 
located outside of Palms Springs. It is between Palm Springs and 
Banning, CA. I think it is called San Jacinto. That farm has hundreds 
of windmills that move when the wind blows. They do not move all the 
time. The footprint there is 1,500 acres. You see it and you say: Wow, 
there are a lot of windmills there.
  What is the equivalent of that in oil production? That would be 
equivalent to 1,350 barrels of oil a day from 1,500 acres. What is 
ANWR? ANWR is 2,000 acres. The equivalent production is 1 million 
barrels a day. I support wind power, but if you are looking for relief, 
you had better put it in an equation that makes sense and that people 
can understand. From 1,500 acres, the equivalent from that wind farm is 
1,350 barrels of oil. ANWR's footprint as authorized in the House bill 
is 2,000 acres. That is equivalent to 1 million barrels per day.
  Let us remember the bottom line--our national security. What could 
this do for the U.S. steel industry? When we built that 800-mile 
pipeline, do you know what the U.S. steel industry did? This was the 
largest order ever in the United States--800 miles of 48-inch pipe. 
They did absolutely nothing. They said: We don't have the capacity for 
an order that big. Where did it come from? It came from Korea, it came 
from Japan, and it came from Italy. If the steel unions and the steel 
industry want to get their act together, let us go after some domestic 
business. You will have some more domestic business associated with 
opening up ANWR.
  I encourage my colleagues again to reflect a little bit. I hope 
everybody's conscience bothers them about the manner in which this was 
laid down, without a committee process and without the jurisdiction of 
the Democratic chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 
The leadership pulled it out of the committee because he knew we had 
the votes to get it to the floor and, furthermore, the dictatorial 
statement that even if we prevail, he is going to pull the bill. Come 
on. I have been around this place long enough to know what the 
democratic process is all about, the committee process is all about, 
and the traditions of the Senate are all about. This is the wrong way 
to start a bill.
  I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page S1241]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________