[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 20 (Friday, March 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1389-S1390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S1389]]
                      ENERGY LEGISLATION AND IRAQ

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this being the first day of March, I 
remind my colleagues of the schedule before us. We are about 3 weeks 
away from our 2-week Easter recess. There are many items on the agenda: 
campaign finance reform; trade authority; stimulus, perhaps; and, of 
course, the President's budget, which will take, I am sure, at least a 
week.
  So it is becoming somewhat clear that time is a precious commodity. 
It is in short supply. I remind my colleagues of commitments made by 
the majority leader. These were commitments made in good faith about 
time and about energy, and we have both around this body.
  I am reminded of a statement he made on November 27 of last year. I 
quote:

       I am prepaid to commit to taking up the energy bill prior 
     to the Founders Day recess; that is, during the first work 
     period, between January 22 and the time we break for the 
     Founders Day recess.

  Again, on December 3, the majority leader said:

       I have already stated very emphatically my desire to bring 
     up the energy bill prior to the Founders Day recess, to have 
     a good debate, to talk about all of the issues, including 
     those which are controversial. It is my expectation we will 
     do just that.

  Again, that was December.
  The majority leader says he wants to move an energy bill, but I am 
afraid we just have not seen the kind of commitment that America 
expects or that is referenced in our calendar. We spent virtually all 
day yesterday in quorum calls, morning business, with no votes. We 
certainly have not done an awful lot this week. I note it is Friday 
afternoon, and it is pretty lonesome around here. Nevertheless, I do 
want to bring to everyone's attention the absence of any aggressive 
timeframe in addressing this energy legislation.
  As you know, it was one of our President's priorities. The priorities 
were energy, a stimulus package, and trade promotion.
  To my knowledge, after looking through the Record, our debates, so 
far, have been quite limited. I spoke an hour on it. Senator Daschle 
spoke for some 20 minutes. That was some time ago. I do not think that 
is an energy debate.
  In my view, the leader has been waiting I do not know for what 
purpose. When will it come up? Perhaps Monday or Tuesday. It probably 
will not come up Monday; maybe Tuesday. The longer it takes until we 
can pass an energy bill, the longer our Nation remains vulnerable.
  In my opinion, energy dependence is our Achilles' heel. Our enemies 
are painfully aware of this. We waited too long to deal with bin Laden, 
we waited too long to deal with al-Qaida, and we are waiting too long 
to deal with Saddam Hussein.
  This is a new month. There is still time and there are still plenty 
of opportunities to commit to the debate and the vote. But the longer 
we wait to address our energy security, the tougher it becomes to fix 
and the greater the risks that we face.
  Mr. President, I would also like to call to the attention of my 
colleagues the dilemma we will face once we get to the bill. This is a 
very complex bill. It is inferior, in my opinion, because it did not 
come through the normal course of activities associated with Senate 
procedure.

  Ordinarily, the bill would begin, upon introduction, by being 
referred to the committee of jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee. The committee would hold hearings. It would take 
witnesses. It would develop a consensus, and, more importantly, it 
would provide an education for each member on the intricacies.
  We are going to be talking about ANWR. That is a very contentious 
issue. But equally contentious is going to be CAFE standards. Just what 
are we going to do to address conservation? And, indeed, at what price?
  The electric portion is extraordinarily complicated. We have not had 
an opportunity for review in the normal process. As a consequence, 
Members are going to be educated by lobbyists, lobbyists with special 
interests. I venture to say, three-quarters, if not more, of the 
membership is not familiar with the terminology used in the electric 
bill. It is very, very complex.
  Our interests, of course, are maintaining an uninterrupted supply of 
electric energy in this country. We have seen what happened in 
California. We are going to need more transmission lines, more intra- 
and interstate activities relative to oversight by FERC. I could go on 
and on, but I promised to keep my remarks within 12 minutes.
  My purpose in bringing this issue up is to make sure every Member 
understands what we are looking at. We are going to be looking at a 
bill that has been laid down as the energy bill, without the process of 
the hearings, without the process of committee action, without the 
process of Republicans and Democrats having come together on some kind 
of a consensus about what we could agree or disagree on. That is going 
to be done on the floor of the Senate, which I think is unfortunate. 
And I am very critical, very frankly, of the Democratic leader, who 
made the decision to pull the responsibility away.
  We all know why that was done. It was done strictly as a political 
move, to ensure the issue of ANWR did not come up in the committee, 
because the votes to pass out a bill with ANWR were clearly within the 
committee's structure. We had both Democratic and Republican support. 
As a consequence of this decision, we are left with this rather unusual 
set of circumstances.
  I might say, to some extent, it was also done to the Commerce 
Committee, which was debating the issue of CAFE standards. It couldn't 
address it or resolve it. At least they had the authority up to that 
time. But, anyway, that was pulled from their committee as well from 
the standpoint of jurisdiction.
  So, my point is, we have a process here that is less than 
traditional. I think it is less than a bipartisan effort in the Senate 
to try to move a bill.
  So the bill has been laid down on the floor by the majority leader, 
and we will start the process.
  As a consequence of that, I think it is also important to recognize 
the realities.
  Yesterday, our brave men and women in uniform were again fired upon. 
They were fired upon by Saddam Hussein's ground forces. They were 
threatened. They were attacked. As a consequence, they fired back.
  I am not talking about Afghanistan; I am talking about Iraq, a 
country from which we are currently importing 800,000 barrels of oil a 
day.

  I quote the Associated Press:

       U.S. planes patrolling a no-fly zone over northern Iraq 
     bombed an Iraqi air defense system Thursday in response to 
     Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, the U.S. military said. It is the 
     second time that U.S. planes have bombed Iraqi defense sites 
     in northern Iraq this year.

  Well, we are 2 months into this year.
  But since the gulf war, in 1992, we have been enforcing a no-fly zone 
over Iraq to keep Saddam Hussein in check. A no-fly zone is almost an 
aerial blockade in the sense of comparing it to a sea blockade. It is 
considered almost an act of war.
  It is the second time we have bombed, as I said, and it is only March 
1st. So I think we are off to a rather troubling start.
  Last year, Iraq shot at U.S. forces, enforcing the no-fly zone, over 
400 times. We responded on 23 occasions.
  But let's not lose sight that while, on the one hand, we perhaps make 
a fist at Iraq, on the other hand, we have our hand out taking his oil.
  In September 2001, we broke an 11-year-old record, importing more 
than 1.16 million barrels of oil from Iraq. It was the same time that 
we had the aircraft used as a weapon in taking down the Twin Towers in 
New York and the Pentagon and the tragedy that occurred in 
Pennsylvania. It was the same time.
  Where is the synergy? We have given Saddam Hussein more than $4 
billion for his oil in the last year. That is a lot of money for an 
economy that is believed to have a GDP of only about $52 billion.
  What does he do with that money? We know he has chemical weapons. He 
has a chemical weapons program. The reason we know it is because during 
the Iran-Iraqi war he used it on his own people--his own people--the 
Kurdish people in northern Iraq.
  In fact, he is believed to have sufficient chemicals to produce 
hundreds of tons of mustard gas, VX, and other nerve agents, as well as 
25 missiles and

[[Page S1390]]

an estimated 15,000 artillery shells capable of the delivery of lethal 
weapons.
  Israel witnessed first hand the reach of his weapons delivery system 
during the gulf war. We know what happened. We know of missiles that 
were aimed at Israel. We know he has been working on nuclear weapons 
because one of his top nuclear engineers defected to the West in 1994 
and has given us details of the program.
  Over many years, Iraq has worked on a number of occasions to acquire 
the material and the knowledge to perhaps build some kind of crude 
nuclear weapon. We can only truly speculate on the extent of his 
success, but it is commonly believed that an Iraqi nuclear device is 
inevitable. And if it is not available currently, the question is when?
  I think it is fair to say that he is up to no good. We can't say for 
sure because we haven't had U.N. inspectors in there since 1998. There 
was a U.N. mandate that we do that. We have not followed through. One 
can only imagine what he might be able to have accomplished in almost 4 
years of seclusion.
  As long as we are dependent on sources such as Saddam Hussein for our 
oil, we will continue to finance the regime of Saddam Hussein. As long 
as he is in power, he will continue to threaten the world as a member 
of the axis of evil, which is a quote from our President.
  All the tools he needs evidently are now within his grasp. Reducing 
foreign dependence on oil can reduce the influence and the reach of a 
Saddam Hussein. The question we have to ask ourselves is, when and if 
we are going to have to deal with this, what will be the consequences 
if we wait too long? Will it be another terrorist attack sponsored by 
Iraq? Will it be another situation where we have something occur that 
we wish we had taken care of because all the signs were there that this 
threat was real? Reducing our dependence on a country such as Iraq is 
going to decrease the supply of oil, so the price is going to go up.
  So what do we do? We have domestic opportunities, and some of that 
will come up in the debate on ANWR, which obviously, as the occupant of 
the Chair knows, is a conviction I have, that we can open it safely, 
that it will come on line in roughly 2\1/2\ to 3 years, that it would 
be on line now if President Clinton had not vetoed it in 1995, and that 
it is a significant supply because it is estimated at somewhere between 
6.5 and 16 billion barrels. If it is half that, it would be as big as 
Prudhoe Bay.
  I might add, for the benefit of the Chair, who is not from Texas, I 
can speculate that there is much more oil in ANWR than in all of Texas.
  With that profound statement, I ask unanimous consent that a 
Washington Post article of Friday, March 1, final edition, be printed 
in the Record, that portion covering Thursday's bombing which comes 
amid a rising debate on whether Iraq will be the next target of U.S. 
antiterrorism campaigns. President George Bush ``branded Iraq as part 
of an `axis of evil' along with Iran and North Korea, and accused it of 
seeking weapons of mass destruction.''
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2002]

           Jets on Patrol Over Iraq Attack Air Defense Sites

       Ankara (AP).--U.S. planes patrolling a no-fly zone over 
     northern Iraq bombed an Iraqi air defense system Thursday in 
     response to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, the U.S. military said.
       It is the second time that U.S. planes have bombed Iraqi 
     defense sites in northern Iraq this year. The planes dropped 
     bombs on the Iraqi defense system after Iraqi forces north of 
     Mosul fired on them during routine patrols of the zone, the 
     U.S. European Command said on a statement. Mosul is 400 
     kilometers (250 miles) north of Baghdad.
       The planes returned safely to their base at Incirlik, in 
     southern Turkey, the command, which is based in Germany, 
     said.
       U.S. and U.K. planes based in southeast Turkey have been 
     flying patrols over northern Iraq since 1991 to protect the 
     Kurdish population from Iraqi forces. Iraq doesn't recognize 
     the zone and has been challenging allied aircraft regularly 
     since 1998.
       Thursday's bombing comes amid a rising debate on whether 
     Iraq will be the next target of the U.S. anti-terror 
     campaign. U.S. President George W. Bush branded Iraq as part 
     of an ``axis of evil'' along with Iran and North Korea, and 
     accused it of seeking weapons of mass destruction.
       Turkey, host to the air patrols and a launching pad for 
     strikes against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War, fears that a war 
     in Iraq could lead to creation of a Kurdish state and boost 
     aspirations of autonomy-seeking Kurds in Turkey.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. Without objection, it is so order.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski, has 
come to the floor on several occasions and complained about the manner 
and method in which Senator Bingaman and Senator Daschle brought forth 
the energy bill, which will shortly come before the Senate. They have 
complained about the path by which it got to the floor. My friend, the 
Senator from Alaska, says it should have been reported out of the 
Energy Committee rather than coming to the floor by Senate standing 
rule XIV.
  But, in May of 2000, Senator Lott moved a Republican bill--the 
National Energy Security Act of 2000--to the floor by rule XIV.
  So when the Senator from Alaska was chair of the Energy Committee and 
the Republicans were in the majority, they moved the bill to the floor 
exactly the same way Senator Daschle has moved our bill. So the ranking 
member of the Energy Committee is now complaining of Senator Daschle 
doing exactly the same thing they did. He participated in this when he 
was chairman of the committee.
  It seems the Senator from Alaska is denigrating the example he set 
last Congress. I guess in the minds of the minority, turnabout is not 
fair play. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________