[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 23 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1553-S1562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 517, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 517) to authorize funding for the Department of 
     Energy to enhance its mission areas through technology 
     transfer and partnerships for fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle/Bingaman further modified amendment No. 2917, in 
     the nature of a substitute.


     Amendment No. 2980 to Amendment No. 2917, as further modified

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its 
consideration.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2980 to amendment No. 2917.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  The clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``(e) Prohibition on Certain Pipeline Route.--No license, 
     permit, lease, right-of-way, authorization or other approval 
     required under Federal law for the construction of any 
     pipeline to transport natural gas from lands within the 
     Prudhoe Bay oil and gas lease area may be granted for any 
     pipeline that follows a route that traverses--
       ``(1) the submerged lands (as defined by the Submerged 
     Lands Act) beneath, or the adjacent shoreline of, the 
     Beaufort Sea; and
       ``(2) enters Canada at any point north of 68 degrees North 
     latitude.''
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ``(d) State Coordination.--The Federal Coordinator shall 
     enter into a Joint Surveillance and Monitoring Agreement, 
     approved by the President and the Governor of Alaska, with 
     the State of Alaska similar to that in effect during 
     construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline to monitor the 
     construction of the Alaska natural gas transportation 
     project. The federal government shall have primary 
     surveillance and monitoring responsibility where the Alaska 
     natural gas transportation project crosses federal lands and 
     private lands, and the state government shall have primary 
     surveillance and monitoring responsibility where the Alaska 
     natural gas transportation project crosses state lands.''


[[Page S1554]]


  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the call of the 
quorum be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask consent that the pending issue be set 
aside temporarily so I may make an opening statement on my leader time, 
without anybody losing their rights.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle and Senator Murkowski for allowing 
me to do this.
  We are soon going to be proceeding with the amendments on this very 
important issue. I have said several times, and I believe it and mean 
it sincerely, that having a national energy policy is one of the two 
most important things we will try to accomplish this year. After 
providing adequate needs for the defense of our country and in the war 
against terrorism, having a national energy policy is the next most 
important. While a lot of other issues are critical and we need to 
address them, this is a very serious matter.
  I focus today on my belief that American dependence on foreign oil 
directly threatens our national security and our freedom. I think it is 
even bigger than that. It is also about economic freedom. If we do not 
address this question in a very broad and comprehensive way, the time 
will come--maybe even this summer once again--when we will have rolling 
brownouts, and someday, perhaps, blackouts, as well as gas lines again. 
We need a comprehensive, broad, national policy to avoid that. If we do 
not do that, we could get to a situation where, for some reason, 
foreign oil imports should be cut off or a high percentage should be 
cut off or we decide we will not continue to be dependent on Iraqi oil, 
or any number of upheavals could affect us immediately. It could affect 
not only our lifestyles but affect the economy and the jobs on which 
people depend. Energy is essential to the creation of jobs, whether in 
the steel industry, the poultry industry, agriculture, or fisheries on 
the Gulf of Mexico where I live.

  I am beginning to think there are people who believe when you flip 
the switch and the power comes on, it magically appears out of this 
wire. Somewhere behind that wire are a lot of things we need to have. 
We need to have transmission lines. We need to have a plant somewhere 
that is creating that power that is wheeled through those lines. And 
the energy that fuels that plant has to come from somewhere.
  In this bill that we are starting off with, I think we have a very 
bad product. I am not going to belabor the process of how we got here, 
but it seems to be a continuing, changing process. The Energy Committee 
didn't act. The Commerce Committee couldn't act on the CAFE standards. 
The Finance Committee did finally get together and it produced a $15 
billion tax incentive package, but there is some concern about whether 
or not that should be offset or how it would be offset. So there is 
going to have to be a lot of work done on this bill to make it 
acceptable.
  I think in the bill as it starts out, far too much is dependent on 
conservation and alternative fuels and not wanting to sufficiently 
address the production side. I think we need both. I am for encouraging 
conservation with incentives. I am for alternative fuels. I am for 
renewables. I am for using tax incentives to get these marginal wells 
back in production. But I also want the other side of that equation. I 
don't think we can conserve ourselves into an energy policy or, by 
reducing what we use, not be threatened by this energy area.
  I hope we will work to come up with a comprehensive package at the 
end that is worth voting on, to send it on to conference. The Senate 
has been developing a pattern now of starting off with bad bills or 
partisan bills. When you do that, you are almost destined to get to a 
point where you cannot get a result.
  We have not been able to move forward on energy for a year but now, 
thank goodness, we are going to have this full debate. I am 
appreciative of that, although I am very worried about the way it is 
starting. It smells like a stimulus bill or an agriculture bill in 
terms of how it is written. Maybe that will not be the case. I, for 
one, have started out by saying: Let's not focus on the negative. Let's 
just go forward and do our work. Let's have amendments, let's have 
votes, let's improve this bill. I may be disappointed in the end and 
some people will come to me and say: See, I told you so, you can't fix 
this thing.
  But I am like Nehemiah in the Bible in building the wall. He believed 
the wall could be built. The people didn't believe it, but they trusted 
him and they kept working and kept working and they built the wall. We 
are trying to build a wall here, and this wall is an energy policy for 
our country.
  So I do think there is a problem that affects our national security 
in the first instance. There are a lot of explanations why we do not 
have a national energy policy. We can blame a lot of people. There will 
be those who quickly say: Blame your neighbor's SUV. I have one. I have 
three grandchildren. I like them to be able to ride in the same vehicle 
with me. Or blame the oil companies--oh, the polluters. What do they 
think we are going to drive the economy with without oil and natural 
gas and coal and nuclear--the whole schmear. Or the automobile makers, 
it is easy to blame the automobile makers.
  Unfortunately, we blame the domestic ones more than we do even the 
international ones--I am not criticizing them because they are putting 
their plants in America and we are glad to have them. They can help us, 
perhaps, produce better automobiles that have better fuel economy. I 
hope it is not done just by cutting them in half, which is what you get 
when you go in Europe. I can't even get into those things they have 
over there, or any of the other usual scapegoats.
  Before we do that, just consider this fact. America is one of the 
leading energy-producing countries in the world. This country has the 
technology, alternative resources, and enough oil and natural gas to 
make itself much more self-sufficient. America does not have to revert 
back to the practices of the 1970s. The country is faced with a serious 
problem because previous Congresses and previous administrations--blame 
everybody--didn't do what needed to be done in this area because it was 
too hard. These issues are not easy, trying to come up with an 
agreement that will provide a positive result. Whether it is in the 
fuel efficiency area, in the production area--every one of them is very 
difficult to work out to an agreement and compromise that will pass.
  As a result, crude oil production is down significantly in this 
country as consumption continues to rise. America now imports 56 
percent of the oil it consumes, compared to 36 percent at the time of 
the 1993 Arab oil embargo. We had long gas lines and we had huge 
debates in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, over what to do 
about our energy needs. We acted as if we thought maybe we had done 
enough. Obviously it didn't work because our dependence on foreign oil 
had gone up.
  At the rate it is going, the Energy Department predicts America will 
be at least 65-percent dependent on foreign oil by 2020. That alarms me 
and I bet it does most Senators--and most Americans, when you think 
about it--when we are dependent on oil that comes from some very 
dangerous parts of the world, in many cases, or some cases very 
unstable governments.

  We cannot continue down this path. This bill has to be passed so that 
will not be what happens. We need a national energy policy that will 
enhance national security by reducing this dependence on foreign energy 
sources. We need a policy that provides incentives for the use of 
natural gas--a fuel which can burn cleanly in internal combustion 
engines and which is abundant within our borders, especially the Gulf 
of Mexico, right in front of my house where I live. It is out there. 
Some of it is being taken out of the gulf now. A lot more could be 
done, but we have a huge battle to try to make use of areas such as the 
Destin Dome in the Gulf of Mexico, which I think is at least 100 miles 
from the shoreline. There is no

[[Page S1555]]

need, no reason we should not pursue that. Natural gas is not oil, for 
one thing. You don't spill it.
  We should also call on America to utilize other domestic resources 
through incentives which encourage the use of marginal oil wells and 
the billions of barrels of oil we have in Alaska. Likewise, we should 
not ignore the use of renewable energy resources such as solar power, 
hydropower, or wind power. Can we get a substantial percentage of our 
needs out of that area? I doubt it, although I think hydropower can 
produce significant amounts. Maybe we can get some help from solar or 
wind. I doubt if we will ever exceed 3 or 4 or 5 percent, but that is 
not small potatoes. Let's do that, too. However, Congress must 
acknowledge that America cannot realistically run only on renewable 
energy resources. We must be realistic and provide a bridge to our 
energy future.
  Despite the most advanced technology and ingenuity, tomorrow's energy 
sources will not answer the energy needs of today. Coal, oil, and 
natural gas remain our most abundant and affordable fuels, and they can 
be used in environmentally sound ways.
  My State doesn't produce a lot of coal. We have some lignite, and we 
are beginning to make use of it. But I believe clean coal technology is 
out there. I believe we can use coal and use it in a much cleaner way. 
We need to have encouragement to do that. Some 55 percent of the 
electricity generated in the United States comes from coal-fired, steam 
generating plants. Coal can make a significant contribution to U.S. 
energy security if the environmental challenges of coal-fired plants 
can be met. Congress should enact legislation which will provide 
credits for emissions reductions and efficiency improvements.
  We are going to have that in this bill. Some are in it and I hope 
there will be even more. Congress must also provide incentives for 
independent producers to keep their wells pumping. Tax credits for 
marginal wells will restore our link to existing resources, including 
many in my own home State of Mississippi. We are not a big oil 
producing State, but we do have some oil and the wells are pumping now. 
The wells are marginal, but they can produce five barrels a day which 
can make a difference.
  These wells are responsible for 50 percent of the U.S. production. We 
should give even more incentives to keep that percentage at least in 
place.
  We also need to increase the availability of domestic natural gas, 
which is the clean alternative for coal in electric power plants. 
Federal land out West may contain as much as 137 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas. Similarly there is Federal land in Alaska which is 
estimated to contain 16 billion barrels of domestic crude oil. None of 
these facts should be surprising.
  There has to be a solution to this problem. Some would say that all 
we need to do is improve energy efficiency and reduce energy 
consumption.
  Is that the way we do things in America? No. In America we make 
things better--more efficient and better. Are we saying you have to 
learn to live with less and that we can't have it as we did? That is 
not the American spirit. We can produce more. We can be more energy 
efficient. We can do all of it if we make up our minds to do it.
  While there is a place for energy efficiency incentives in developing 
a natural energy policy, we must not starve our economy of the energy 
it needs to maintain and improve our standard of living. In the long 
run, a national energy policy that looks at all realistic sources of 
energy must be developed.
  This is not the 1970s. America has better technology, more efficient 
and cleaner automobiles, as well as more energy options. The question 
is, How long will we forgo these options and be held hostage to nations 
abroad or extremists at home who do not want us to do what can and 
should be done? America must tap the vast resources we have. America 
can solve its energy problems but Congress must act in the interests of 
the entire Nation, rather than a select few, or with a defeatist 
attitude. Providing families the security and freedom they deserve 
depends upon stable, reliable, clean, and affordable energy. America 
badly needs a comprehensive, but realistic, national energy policy, and 
we need it now.
  I say again that while I might object to the content of the bill we 
are beginning with and the process used to get here, we are on it. So 
let us make our opening statements. Let us get the amendments started. 
Let us see if we can't produce a bill that we can send to conference 
and get this job done.
  The President of the United States wants us to do this. He knows we 
have to do it. He raised it in a meeting just yesterday. He didn't say 
you have to do it this way or that way. I know he wants us to get 
access to oil in ANWR and other places in this country. I know he wants 
us to have a realistic CAFE standard. But he is not saying you have to 
do it my way to get it done.
  Mr. Chairman and Senator Murkowski, let's roll.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Republican 
leader for his statement. While there are some things that might divide 
us on the issue, there is a lot he just said that I agree with 
wholeheartedly. This country needs an energy policy. We ought to be 
moving forward. We can do both in terms of comprehensive conservation 
and comprehensive production incentives. So I thank him for the spirit 
in which he has begun this debate.
  For those who have expressed some concern about the way this bill 
came to the floor, I will just say that this is the way the last energy 
bill came to the floor in May and June of the year 2001. But I want to 
address very briefly the amendment I have just laid down.
  One of the most significant, responsible ways in which to increase 
production and improve our Nation's energy security is to build a 
pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to the lower forty-eight 
states.
  There are 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves on the 
North Slope of Alaska. Right now, that gas is being pumped back into 
the ground because we have no way of getting it to people. In the 
energy bill we are now debating, Senator Bingaman and I have proposed a 
2,000-mile long gas pipeline that would create 400,000 jobs, use an 
estimated 5 million tons of U.S. steel, and ensure that we do not 
become dependent on imported liquefied natural gas. If we want to 
create jobs, increase our energy security, and help the U.S. steel 
industry, building this pipeline is the way to do it.
  Last week, Alaska Governor Tony Knowles suggested some refinements in 
the legislation that would ensure that American workers, and in 
particular, Alaskans, get the greatest benefit from this project.
  In particular, Governor Knowles urged us to ensure that the pipeline 
follow what is known as the southern route down the Alaska Highway. 
This will ensure that much of the pipeline is constructed in Alaska and 
that it avoids the environmental pitfalls that construction could have 
on the fragile northern Alaska environment and the Beaufort Sea.
  Second, he asked that we clarify the rules for State and federal 
cooperation, to ensure that the development of the pipeline proceed as 
smoothly as possible. Both of these issues are addressed in the 
amendment we are offering today. Other changes that Governor Knowles 
has requested include guaranteeing access to the pipeline for new 
natural gas producers that may arise in the future, protecting the 
ability of Alaskans to have access to the natural gas that will be 
transported in the pipeline, and establishing a tax incentive to reduce 
the risk associated with natural gas price volatility.
  Senator Bingaman is working closely with others to develop language 
on these issues, and I would expect the final product of these 
deliberations to be added to the energy bill prior to final passage.
  Energy for America, jobs and opportunity for Alaskans, and no damage 
to sensitive environmental areas should all be goals to which we can 
subscribe. This legislation, and this amendment in particular, allow us 
to do that with even greater confidence.
  I yield the floor.


     Amendment No. 2980 to Amendment No. 2917, As Further Modified

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have a modification of the amendment at 
the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is modified.
  The amendment (No. 2980), as modified, is as follows:
       Insert the following after Section 704(d):

[[Page S1556]]

       ``(e) Prohibition on Certain Pipeline Route.--No license, 
     permit, lease, right-of-way, authorization or other approval 
     required under Federal law for the construction of any 
     pipeline to transport natural gas from lands within the 
     Prudhoe Bay oil and gas lease area may be granted for any 
     pipeline that follows a route that traverses--
       ``(1) the submerged lands (as defined by the Submerged 
     Lands Act) beneath, or the adjacent shoreline of, the 
     Beaufort Sea; and
       ``(2) enters Canada at any point north of 68 degrees North 
     latitude.''
       Insert the following after Section 706(c):
       ``(d) State Coordination.--The Federal Coordinator shall 
     enter into a Joint Surveillance and Monitoring Agreement, 
     approved by the President and the Governor of Alaska, with 
     the State of Alaska similar to that in effect during 
     construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline to monitor the 
     construction of the Alaska natural gas transportation 
     project. The federal government shall have primary 
     surveillance and monitoring responsibility where the Alaska 
     natural gas transportation project crosses federal lands and 
     private lands, and the state government shall have primary 
     surveillance and monitoring responsibility where the Alaska 
     natural gas transportation project crosses state lands.''

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak very briefly on the same 
issue that the majority leader raised.
  I also believe it is very important for us in this legislation to 
facilitate construction of this pipeline from the North Slope of Alaska 
to bring natural gas to the lower 48 States. This is an issue that my 
colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, has been urging for some 
time. I know Senator Stevens, as well, strongly supports it. I know 
that virtually all of us on the Energy Committee have believed 
construction of this pipeline needed to be a priority item as part of a 
comprehensive energy plan. That is why we included it in the 
legislation that is before the Senate today.
  The amendment Senator Daschle has now offered would change what we 
have in the bill in a couple of important respects. The main thing it 
would do is ensure that the so-called southern route be chosen. This is 
again something that I know all of the representatives from Alaska have 
urged on us. I know Governor Knowles has urged this in testimony before 
the Energy Committee. He urged that this be done.
  The bill we have introduced did not specify that the southern route 
was the only option. We were route neutral in the bill that is before 
the Senate because we believed that was an issue and a river we weren't 
ready to cross. But at this stage, I think it is clear that this 
southern route, which was authorized in the previous legislation that 
was passed in Congress a couple of decades ago, is part of our 
international treaty with Canada. It recognizes that there are 
environmental advantages if we follow this existing transportation 
route.
  I think there are substantial advantages to be argued in favor of 
doing this southern route. I know it has been a priority for, as I say, 
the Governor of Alaska and the Senators and the Representative from 
Alaska for a long time. I think it will improve the bill.
  It will make it clear that the Senate is anxious to see the jobs 
created in Alaska and that it is anxious to see the economic benefits. 
It recognizes that the environmental benefits are substantial as well.
  I will support the amendment as it is proposed. I hope we can get 
strong bipartisan support for it. As I say, it is one of those issues 
we have debated for a long time. We brought the bill to the floor with 
a route-neutral provision in it. Now that would change, but it would 
change with my support.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope my name will be added as a sponsor of 
this Daschle-Bingaman amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have not had an opportunity to speak on 
this legislation. I am going to speak generally about the legislation, 
but in particular to this amendment. For those who are interested, I 
think we have a clear description of what this legislation, as amended, 
would do. Basically it brings the route down through Alaska. It is a 
route of over 2,000 miles.

  The amount of jobs it would create is very significant. It would 
create 400,000 new jobs. And this is an unbelievably large figure, but 
it is accurate. This is pipe that is more than 50 inches in diameter. 
We would need 5 million tons of steel. I would hope it would be U.S. 
steel: 5 million tons. It is hard for me to comprehend that, but that 
is what it would take.
  The bill would provide $10 billion in loan guarantees for the 
construction of this pipeline and would bring 35 trillion cubic feet of 
natural gas to the lower 48 States. That is significant.
  We can all readily agree that the United States needs to lessen its 
dependence on foreign oil. The best way to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil is to diversify our energy supply by developing renewable 
energy resources. We also would hope to adopt a CAFE standard. My 
understanding is that there is a bipartisan agreement being worked out 
as we speak, if it has not already been worked out. We were close to 
working it out yesterday. Senator Kerry and Senator McCain are working 
out something on CAFE standards. Another way to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil is to improve the energy efficiency of our homes and 
appliances.
  That is how we can best lessen our dependence, reduce our demand on 
foreign oil: diversify our energy supply by developing renewable energy 
resources, adopt a CAFE standard, and improve the energy efficiency of 
our homes and appliances.
  It is also obvious that the demand for natural gas is increasing 
worldwide. In the United States, natural gas consumption is expected to 
outpace current supply sources over the next 10 to 20 years, creating a 
shortfall of more than 6 trillion cubic feet by the year 2020. But 
remember, this legislation would immediately bring to the lower 48 
States 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. So we would not have the 
6 trillion cubic feet shortfall if we are able to produce this gas 
line.
  In Nevada, 29 percent of our electricity needs are now met by natural 
gas, and that fraction will only grow over time. There is the 
construction now of a number of powerplants in Nevada to meet the needs 
of California and, particularly, Nevada.
  Clearly, the future favors natural gas as a primary source of 
electricity in our country. Rightfully, many fear the United States 
will become as dependent on imported liquid natural gas in the future 
as we are on oil today. That is why this southern route is so important 
to our country.
  I support the provisions of this act before us. I particularly 
support this amendment. This amendment would increase the supply of 
domestically produced natural gas available to U.S. consumers by 
expediting the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's 
North Slope to the lower 48 States.
  I do not think there is a question of whether we are going to build 
the pipeline; it is a question of where we are going to build it. That 
is why there has been a general agreement we need to go with the 
southern route, not the northern route, for a number of reasons, not 
the least of which is the need to help Alaska as much as we can.
  There is more than 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas immediately 
available in the Alaskan North Slope, gas that is pumped back into the 
ground because we have no way of getting it to the people. That is 
inefficient. We save a lot of it by pumping it back into the ground, 
but we do not save it all.

  It is estimated that the total natural gas available from the Alaska 
North Slope is more than 100 trillion cubic feet. The pipeline would 
provide natural gas to American consumers for at least 30 years, and it 
would be a stabilizing force on natural gas prices.
  We have heard a lot from my friend, the distinguished ranking member 
of the Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, about how many jobs ANWR 
would create. But the jobs ANWR would create are simply not as great as 
these 400,000 new jobs. The pipeline would provide a significant 
opportunity for the U.S. steel industry, requiring up to 2,100 miles of 
pipe and, as I have indicated before, 5 million tons of steel.
  The Alaska natural gas pipeline is a responsible way to address our 
Nation's growing demand for natural gas. It means energy independence 
and jobs, a winning combination.
  We may have some disagreement with the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska on whether we should drill in ANWR, but there is no controversy, 
dispute, or question about the fact that we need to do everything we 
can, as

[[Page S1557]]

quickly as we can, to bring the natural gas from Alaska to the lower 48 
States.
  That is why the Governor of Alaska is totally supportive of what we 
are doing. Senator Stevens--and I am confident Senator Murkowski--
support what we are doing. Of course, if there is something that is 
wrong with this amendment that does not meet the demands of Senator 
Murkowski, we would be happy to speak with him. But as far as I know, 
in the meetings that have been on his staff level, we are headed in the 
right direction.
  This amendment has two parts. It would ban the so-called ``over the 
top'' route for the pipeline--what we are talking about is, it would 
ban this route shown on the chart here--by prohibiting the issuance of 
any of the necessary Federal permits.
  Governor Knowles' testimony is significant. He testified before the 
Energy Committee. Among other things, Governor Knowles said:

       I respectfully suggest there are three essential components 
     of this vitally important legislation. First, the route must 
     be mandated along the Alaska Highway, as provided for in the 
     1976 Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Act. Second, this 
     legislation must build American industry and create American 
     jobs. Third, there must be economic incentives to attract the 
     private capital to the project which when completed will 
     substantially add to the national treasury.
       There are many reasons why the route of the gasoline must 
     follow the existing oil pipeline from the Alaska North Slope 
     to Fairbanks and then the Alaska Highway through Canada to 
     Alberta.
       It is currently authorized in ANGTA [Alaska Natural Gas 
     Transportation Act] and a presidential decision. It is part 
     of an international treaty with Canada. It recognizes the 
     environmental advantage of following existing transportation 
     corridors. It allows vitally important access to the gas for 
     the residents and businesses in Alaska. For these reasons, 
     this route has the broadest support among Alaskans of any 
     major project in recent history.
       Additionally, there are serious concerns over the proposed 
     alternative route commonly known as the northern or ``over 
     the top'' route. This route would originate on the Alaskan 
     North Slope then proceed 240 miles under the ice-choked 
     Beaufort Sea to the Mackenzie River Delta and then up that 
     river drainage to Alberta.
       First and perhaps the most significant opposition to that 
     route has come from the unanimous objections of the North 
     Slope Inupiat Eskimos. At a recent public hearing, their 
     corporate, community, and tribal leaders vowed they would use 
     every resource available to them to fight this route, which 
     would threaten their cultural and nutritional dependence on 
     marine mammals.
       Second, both Alaskan and national environmental 
     organizations have said they too strenuously oppose this ill-
     conceived frontier route. Calling for previously untested 
     technologies and risky ventures underwater, this project 
     could never be considered as a preferred alternative to an 
     existing land transportation corridor.

  This is the Governor of Alaska. I quoted him verbatim.
  The southern route, as he indicated, is authorized in ANGTA and is 
part of an international treaty with Canada. It recognizes the 
environmental advantage of following the existing transportation 
corridors and allows access to gas for Alaskan residents.
  There are serious concerns, environmentally and socially, over the 
northern ``over the top'' route. As indicated, the Northern Slope 
Eskimos strictly oppose this. Environmental organizations oppose this.
  For these reasons, the Alaskan delegation, to my knowledge, is 
supportive of the southern route.
  One of the myths that we have heard is the Alaskan natural gas 
pipeline will create less jobs than drilling in the Arctic Refuge. We 
do not need a battle over which creates the most jobs, but I do say 
that the Congressional Research Service, which is an investigative arm 
of this body, estimates only 60,000 jobs would be created by drilling 
in the Arctic Refuge--only 60,000 jobs. I recognize that is a lot of 
jobs.
  Certainly, even for Nevada, a State that is probably three times the 
population of Alaska, 60,000 jobs would be a lot of jobs. I am sure the 
Presiding Officer, if he lost 60,000 jobs in Nebraska, would take note. 
He would take further note though that the Congressional Research 
Service reports that building the Alaska natural gas pipeline would 
create more than 400,000 new jobs according to industry estimates and 
require roughly 5 million tons of U.S. steel and 2,100 miles of pipe. 
The energy bill would provide $10 billion in loan guarantees for the 
pipeline.
  This is a good amendment. It is not only a good amendment, it is a 
good bill. This bill does some things important for the State of 
Nevada. We have been very concerned about the FERC having too many new 
broad authorities at the expense of State authority. In reality, under 
this Senate bill, FERC is given limited authorities that both Democrats 
and Republicans have advocated for years to oversee the reliability of 
the grid and require that all utilities play by the same transmission 
rules. California and Nevada were hurt significantly during the past 
year by actions of FERC, and this certainly will not strengthen FERC's 
role.
  Some loopholes in FERC's merger review authority are filled, but the 
bill does not deregulate the electricity industry. In fact, some needed 
FERC authorities are strengthened, as indicated by both Democrats and 
Republicans, to ensure markets can be relied upon to provide low-cost 
electricity.
  Another myth is that the Senate energy bill fails to exploit the 
Nation's potential to produce and use oil and natural gas. In reality, 
oil and natural gas will continue to play an integral role in the U.S. 
energy policy. This bill before the Senate provides $4.6 billion in tax 
incentives for oil and natural gas and $10 billion in loan guarantees, 
as we have talked about this morning, to build the Alaska natural gas 
pipeline which will bring 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the 
lower 48 States.
  Nevada has no coal. We are rich in other minerals. We are the third 
largest producer of gold in the world behind South Africa and 
Australia. We produce large quantities of silver and other precious 
metals. We don't have any coal--good coal or bad coal--but we still 
understand the importance of coal in America.
  The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more coal than 
any other country. We want to overcome the myth that some are saying 
this legislation will limit the use of coal in the United States. Quite 
to the contrary, the energy bill provides $1.9 billion in tax 
incentives for clean coal and establishes extensive clean coal research 
programs. The bill will ensure the use of clean coal in the United 
States and clean air in the future.
  Outside Reno we have a power plant that was initiated with clean coal 
technology. It couldn't have been built with clean coal technology 
without the Federal Government helping Sierra Pacific Power do that. I 
am a big fan of using coal but using it in a different method than we 
have used in the past. Clean coal technology is something we have to 
rely on and do more than what we have done before. This legislation 
crafted by Senator Bingaman will allow us to do that.
  I hope we can move this legislation as quickly as possible. We have 
so much to do in the Senate. The leader has said we are going to finish 
campaign finance reform. We have all the many items we talked about for 
so long that we have to do, now that we are a little bit removed from 
September 11, even though that still is our first fixation. 
Prescription drug benefits is something we have to work on. We have all 
the appropriations bills to pass.

  We recognize we need an energy policy. I commend and applaud the 
Senator from New Mexico, chairman of this committee, for this work of 
art, some would say, he has given to us. He has worked hard. We have a 
good piece of legislation. I look forward to working with him and 
Senator Murkowski to come up with an energy policy for this country and 
move this legislation out of the Senate, move it to the House where we 
can have a conference, and come back with something for the President 
to sign.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the pending business before the Senate 
is Senator Daschle's amendment to the pending underlying bill, S. 517; 
is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I join with Senator Stevens and certainly our 
colleague on the House side, Representative Young, and commend the 
majority for introducing this amendment that selects a southern route 
for the development of natural gas from the State of Alaska.

[[Page S1558]]

  I believe that while we have supported without exception the 
designation of the southern route, the amendment in itself is not 
complete and does not represent the total interest of Alaskans. I will 
explain that further.
  First of all, it is appropriate to note that as far as the 
responsibility of the Senate is concerned, we have finally met one 
responsibility associated with the energy bill; that is, to have 
bipartisan support for the designation of the southern route. It is 
also appropriate to recognize that the House initiated this some time 
ago. It is in H.R. 4, the specific designation of a southern route.
  I was very glad to see the leader was so anxious to bring this up as 
the first amendment from the majority. It shows that Alaskans can 
prevail--our Governor, our Lieutenant Governor, Senator Stevens and 
myself, Representative Young.
  On the other hand, in the interest of full disclosure, it is 
appropriate to note that my objection, when the majority leader asked 
unanimous consent to terminate reading of the amendment, was that I had 
not seen the amendment and believed it should have been read. I have 
seen the amendment and, as a consequence, believe that while the 
amendment, certainly in general terms, addresses the bottom line--
namely, the southern route--it does not address what Alaskans want. 
What Alaskans want is a little broader series of alternatives.
  I will be working with the majority in hopes that we can include that 
in the amendment. Of course, I will be a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Specifically, what Alaskans want is to have alternatives for that 
gas, that 37 trillion cubic feet of gas that lies beneath the oil 
fields of Prudhoe Bay. What are those alternatives? They primarily are 
associated with utilizing that gas in Alaska on several alternative 
routes if, indeed, the economics support routing. As the President is 
well aware, our oil goes down to Valdez, AK, through the 800-mile 
pipeline and moves down the west coast of the United States to 
Washington, to California, where it is refined.
  There has been for many years promotion of an idea that one of the 
potential markets for Alaska's gas--because there is every reason to 
believe we are going to find more gas than the 37 trillion cubic feet 
we found accidentally hunting for oil--is the ability to liquefy that 
gas and either ship it down the west coast of the United States or ship 
it to the Orient. There have been projects where millions of dollars 
have been expended exploring the route. Not too many people in this 
body know that in the early sixties, the first LNG in Japan came from 
Alaska, a million tons a year. That contract has been renewed and a new 
fleet of ships has been built. Alaska is no stranger to exporting LNG. 
It came from a field near Anchorage, and the reserves there are 
somewhat limited or we would be exporting more LNG from that point.

  The point of this discussion is to make sure that we are not solely 
bound to this southern route that is offered by the Majority Leader. I 
might add that we are going to have some charts to show you because I 
think it is important that you understand that the southern route, as 
it is conceived, from the Prudhoe Bay area, follows an existing 
pipeline approximately down to Fairbanks. Then it takes off in 
Fairbanks and goes down toward the delta area, where it branches off 
and goes to Valdez.
  This amendment, in general, would cover the southern route, the 
highway route. But we want to make sure it does not exclude, if you 
will--because the possibility of exporting LNG is very real, and it has 
been promoted for some time--I want to make sure that is included as an 
alternative.
  Secondly, we have every reason to believe that in the area associated 
with Point Mackenzie in the Matanuska Valley, where they are putting in 
a port development, that we have the availability of gas to come down 
from Fairbanks, perhaps under the railroad right of way, and come into 
the particular area ahead of Cook Inlet and the Matanuska Valley, where 
there is a port being built.
  Then there is the recognition that Anchorage receives most of its gas 
from the fields of Cook Inlet and the Kenai area. We want to make sure 
Anchorage has access to this gas. Further, we have large petrochemical 
plants in Alaska--the only year-round manufacturing facilities we have, 
as a matter of fact, so we think they are large, but they are small by 
U.S. standards, like the ones down on the Kenai Peninsula. So I don't 
want to see this amendment limited to strictly a southern route so that 
would market the gas only through Canada and into the lower 48. We want 
the market to dictate where this gas goes. It is important.
  Unfortunately, the way this was handled, I can only assume that there 
is a process here that might involve a little politics. I was prepared 
to offer, in my amendment--which would mandate a southern route--that 
would specifically contain alternatives that are certainly in the 
interest of Alaska. I have not seen the correspondence from our 
Governor or Lieutenant Governor to the majority. So I cannot comment on 
how broad the request was from the standpoint of inclusion and having 
alternatives. But I know from my contacts with Alaskans they want 
alternatives, and they don't want to be limited by this amendment to 
one specific designated southern route that would not allow the 
availability of those alternatives.
  Let me put it another way. We want to make sure the market dictates 
the alternatives of either bringing it down toward Anchorage, bringing 
it down toward the Kenai Peninsula and the Matanuska Valley and the 
port that is under development there, as well as having the 
availability of bringing it further down toward the delta and then down 
to Valdez, where we could liquefy it.
  So I am very sensitive about this and hope that we can work with the 
majority to include in this amendment a comprehensive accommodation, 
since we are so interested this morning--I must say I am very pleased 
that this isn't the first amendment of the majority where they chose to 
be responsive to our concerns in our State. Again, I remind my 
colleagues that H.R. 4, of course, already designated a southern route. 
But I sense a certain eagerness to accommodate a gas pipeline, and I am 
wondering to what extent. I have the strange feeling that it is at the 
expense of ANWR.

  We are going to have an opportunity to talk about ANWR and to provide 
an amendment. But I think there is an interesting point that has been 
overlooked. Since the majority was so anxious to accommodate us, in the 
sense that we have had this issue before us relative to the gas 
pipeline for so long, I am curious to know why it wasn't in the 
underlying bill. But beggars cannot be choosers, and it is in here this 
morning and I am very pleased.
  I see my good friend seeking recognition. I will respond to his 
question.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thought it appropriate that I try to 
respond to the Senator from Alaska. I tried to explain earlier that my 
thinking at the time we put the bill together for consideration in the 
Senate was that we should bring a bill to the Senate floor that was 
route neutral. We had received urging that we prohibit use of the 
northern route. But it did not seem to me, knowing what we did at that 
point, that was the right course. Since then, we have gotten more 
information from the Governor of Alaska, from the Senators from Alaska, 
from the environmental community, and from those who currently hold a 
right of way to construct the pipeline under existing law. It seems to 
me the weight of the evidence is clearly in favor of the amendment that 
Senator Daschle has now proposed and for which I think we have good 
bipartisan support. I point out also that this amendment does not limit 
options as far as where the pipeline goes, except that it prohibits the 
use of the northern route. That is what it does.
  Clearly, I think the consensus now in the Senate among those I have 
spoken to is that is the correct course to follow, and I think that is 
what we are trying to do by this amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the response of my good 
friend, Senator Bingaman, and he is my friend. We have worked on this 
issue. I appreciate his explanation. But I have to refer to the fact 
that route issue has been around for a while because the House had it 
in its bill. Of course, we were not a party to the process of 
developing the underlying bill as the minority, so we didn't have an 
opportunity to address the route issue, and the bill came in route 
neutral.

[[Page S1559]]

  Today, it is no longer route neutral. We appreciate that fact. We 
will cosponsor it, but we are going to add a little more to it. I am 
sure the majority would agree it is in the interest of Alaska, since we 
are anxious to make that accommodation. Again, we are most 
appreciative. But it didn't just come up. It came from H.R. 4, and we 
have always been in favor because, obviously, the other alternative is 
simply to take the gas over the top, so to speak, as you can see, from 
Prudhoe Bay. You take it along the Arctic Ocean off the 1002 area of 
the Arctic National Wildife Refuge, over into Canada, and then come 
down.
  Obviously, that is in the best interest of Alaska, not in the best 
interest of jobs.
  In any event, the amendment is the pending business. We are going to 
have Members talk this morning, giving their opening statements on the 
energy bill. I believe there is an effort to accommodate our friend 
from Utah for a short statement on the successful Olympics. We 
certainly congratulate him and his colleague for providing us that 
great, extraordinary experience.
  There are a couple more comments I do want to make relative to the 
comparison between the gas line development and the prospects of 
whether or not some see it as a tradeoff for ANWR. I assure the 
majority that these two issues are not quid pro quo issues; they have 
to stand on their own, as they should. It is unfortunate they have come 
up in the same time sequence, but that is the reality of the way things 
happen.
  Again, as we look at where we are in the debate, as we look at the 
reality that the majority has chosen this as their first amendment, had 
we had an opportunity to offer the first amendment, it would have been 
a similar amendment, but it would have been more inclusive for Alaska 
allowing for alternatives.
  I want to make sure my Alaska friends know the order of preference. 
When you are in the minority, you are in the minority. That is the 
harsh reality. The majority has every right to present this as their 
first amendment. But I want to make it very clear, had they not, we 
would have presented this as our first amendment. It would have been 
broader. It would have been more inclusive.
  I have a couple more points to make. Again, this amendment does not 
address the crucial underlying feature associated with this gas line. 
This gas is on State lands. The leases belong to Phillips, British 
Petroleum, and they belong primarily to Exxon. They are the companies 
that are going to have to build this pipeline or work with a consortium 
of gas line companies, such as Duke, Williams, El Paso, Foothills.
  This is going to be a gigantic project. It is going to cost somewhere 
in the area of $15 billion to $20 billion. It will be the largest 
construction project in the history of North America. But it needs a 
safety net.
  What do I mean by a safety net? If we are going to put out that kind 
of money and the price of gas drops below your cost, as the Presiding 
Officer knows as a businessman, you cannot stay in business very long.
  We are not breaking new ground here. We have seen deep water royalty 
relief, and that is evident in the drilling that goes on in the Gulf of 
Mexico. We are going to need something with this pipeline.
  We have been communicating with the Governor's office. In fact, we 
provided most of the information that has come back in a rather 
roundabout way to the majority because we work with the Governor's 
office. From Washington, it goes to Juneau and back and makes a rather 
circuitous route because it ends up with the majority leader of the 
Democratic Party. This is just politics, but much of the input is ours, 
and that is an obligation Senator Stevens and I have. We will do it and 
continue to do it, even if it makes almost a full circle.
  The crux of this is the principals have expended roughly $100 
million, evaluating this project, and they say currently, because of 
the price of gas, it is uneconomical. Mr. President, you know what that 
means, and I know what that means, and I am not very happy about it. 
But at the current price of gas, it is not economical.
  On the other hand, on the positive side, the prospects for 
development are good because we are pulling down our gas reserves in 
the United States much faster than we are finding new gas reserves. 
There is no question this gas will be marketed. There is a question 
ultimately of whether it will be just the U.S. domestic market or an 
LNG market in the Pacific rim. The economics dictate, but in order for 
this to be built now, there has to be some arrangement that if the 
price of gas falls below a certain level, there is a safety net.

  Who is going to underwrite that safety net? Obviously, we are looking 
toward the Federal Government, the same as we do in deep water royalty 
relief in the Gulf of Mexico. In Alaska, we have a frontier area; we do 
not have the infrastructure. What is different about our gas is it is 
nearly 3,000 miles away from the Chicago market where ultimately the 
volume is anticipated.
  It is not that our gas is different, but it has to be moved further, 
and to move it further costs more money. What we need in this equation 
is a safety net that perhaps could be paid back when the price of gas 
goes over a certain level.
  We are not looking for a handout. But the problem we have is the 
mechanics are not done yet. We do not know how it scores. I do not know 
that the people who are in the business of scoring really understand, 
but the concept is fair and equitable, and we are going to pursue it. I 
am very happy the majority is going to pursue it with us.
  While route selection is vital and important, it does not build the 
project. The only thing that is going to build the project is the 
economics, and that is what we are working on.
  We have Exxon, BP, and Phillips as primary partners. However, as you 
know, they are not all the same size. Some are a little bigger and take 
a little bigger risk.
  I want to make the record very clear on what we have done today as we 
have designated a route, and we are going to broaden it with 
alternatives, but the real crux is coming up with this safety net.
  It is fair to close with my wariness, if you will, that suddenly we 
have this broad support for a gas line, but is it at the price of ANWR? 
As I indicated, as far as Alaskans are concerned, there is no quid pro 
quo; these have to stand independently. I do not want to hear Members 
say: I am for you on the gas line but I am against you on ANWR. Members 
should be making a decision on what is right for America.
  As a consequence, I point out that perhaps our Governor could 
intervene, as he has in communicating to the majority with regard to 
the language designating a southern route. I suppose I could send 
something up asking the Governor to intervene on ANWR and maybe he 
could prevail upon the majority to include ANWR in the amendment, but I 
assume that would not stand the test of time. His support might be able 
to overcome the threat of a filibuster by the majority because Senator 
Daschle has already indicated they are prepared to basically 
filibuster, filing cloture, requiring 60 votes. I hope that if the 
Governor is as successful this morning on the route designation, he 
might be able to address the ANWR issue as well.
  Again, we have to understand politics. So as we look at where we are, 
I think we have to recognize we have a gigantic project that is before 
us that is in the interest of the United States. I am talking about 
both projects because they are different. The majority whip has made 
his comments relative to jobs. The interesting thing is we import about 
15 percent of our natural gas in this country, primarily from Canada, 
but we import 58 percent of our oil. That ought to address some 
concerns about the vulnerability of the country.
  I hear a lot relative to jobs in this debate. The jobs in ANWR are 
all American jobs, but if one looks at that pipeline that the majority 
has in their chart, look how much goes through Canada vis-a-vis how 
much goes through Alaska. No question, there is probably two and a half 
to three times more activity that will take place in Canada. Those are 
going to be Canadian jobs, but opening ANWR will create all American 
jobs. I am sure the majority has been contacted by labor and labor has 
indicated how important those jobs are to America.
  We need to understand the project a little better. We need to have 
more

[[Page S1560]]

Members visit the area. We need to recognize this project is designed 
to be constructed using 52-inch X-80 steel.
  How many steel mills in the United States make this steel? Zero. This 
is an order that is estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 
billion to $5 billion. Do you know what they say? We are not geared up 
to it.
  I do not know about the Chair, but I am inclined to think, as a 
businessman, if he had an order that big, he would start figuring out a 
way to try to participate. I certainly would.
  What happened the last time we built an 800-mile pipeline for oil? Do 
you know where the pipe was built? In Japan, in Korea, and Italy. Why? 
Our steel mills were not geared up. In other words, they could not 
compete. Well, that is another argument for another day. We have quotas 
on steel, but clearly this is the biggest order ever contemplated 
associated with the natural gas issue. So I hope this will be an 
awakening to the American steel industry that there is some business at 
home, big business. They have not had a $3 billion to $5 billion order 
in a century. It would take the entire output of the steel mills in 
Korea and Japan for nearly 2 years to build this gas pipeline.
  So we are going to have an interesting debate. I hopefully have 
cleared the air on the amendment. I look forward to the debate.
  I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered. The Senator will be added as a cosponsor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I hope we will be able to work with the majority to 
expand the amendment as Alaskans have expressed their desire to have 
various alternatives for the marketing of our gas. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know there are other Senators wishing to 
speak, so I will be relatively brief. I say to my friend from Alaska, 
it would be appropriate on something this important to the State of 
Alaska that we have a vote on it. We want to make sure when this matter 
goes to the House they recognize the entire Senate supports it. So I 
ask my friend if he is ready for a vote, not immediately but sometime 
in the near future?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, it is very possible we may have a 
second degree. We have an objection on our side that we have to clear 
as well. So I agree with my colleague ``at some point in time,'' but it 
is premature at this time on our side.

  Mr. REID. What I say to my friend from Alaska is, we understand there 
are always things that can be improved and we will certainly look 
forward to working with the Senator, and Senator Stevens, as to how we 
can improve this amendment, but in the near future I hope we can vote 
on this issue. If there is anything that the Senator needs or believes 
is appropriate to improve it, we can work at the staff level and then 
with the principals. We will be happy to do that.
  I say to my friend from Alaska, for whom I have the greatest respect, 
this is quite interesting. I wish Nevada had the choices that Alaska 
has today. That is, this bill is going to give Alaska something. It is 
a question of how much. It is a question of whether Alaska is going to 
get ANWR and this pipeline or just get the pipeline. But there is no 
question that Alaska, after this legislation passes, is going to have 
the hope of a significant number of new jobs.
  As the Senator from Alaska knows, I do not favor ANWR and we are 
going to have a debate relatively soon on that. I hope we can fix the 
debate on that issue and resolve it after everyone has an opportunity 
to say what they want and move on to the rest of this legislation. 
Whoever in effect wins, let us move on. It is a question of who has 60 
votes, I guess, in this Chamber. So I look forward to that.
  I also say that not only is Alaska looking to this legislation with 
favor but there are lots of others looking to this legislation with 
favor, not the least of which, as the Senator from Alaska has said, are 
the steel companies and steel workers in America.
  I agree with the Senator from Alaska we can bring our steel mills 
back into production. With what the President did yesterday, it 
certainly is a step in the right direction. If we pass this 
legislation, hopefully they can get geared up to move forward.
  One of the problems we have, of course, is companies are no longer 
just American companies, they are international companies, and 
sometimes they do not look at building things in America in the right 
light. So I recognize other issues are important to address with 
respect to the pipeline, and we want to work with the Alaska 
delegation, including the Governor, in good faith, in moving these 
matters forward.
  The two items in this amendment are noncontroversial and do not 
prejudice other concerns that may come up at a subsequent time. We hope 
there can be agreement to vote on this amendment soon and continue to 
work on the other issues. I think it would set a great pattern for this 
legislation, to have a bipartisan vote moving forward with something 
that is extremely important.
  The House bill did not address any of the other issues raised by 
Senator Murkowski. The amendment is broader than the House language--
not a lot, but it is broader. The amendment bans the northern route and 
does not specify where the southern route will go, but we know it will 
go through Alaska. So I hope the Senators on the other side will allow 
us to have a vote in the near future and move on to the next amendment 
which will be offered by Senator Murkowski.
  It is my understanding, based upon what Senator Murkowski said, that 
Senator Bennett is wishing to speak as in morning business. Is that 
right? And if I could ask a question of my friend from Utah, who I am 
sure is very proud of being able to talk about the way the Olympics 
went off--Utah should be very proud--how long does the Senator wish to 
speak?

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, somewhere between 15 and 20 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. If I may respond, the Senator from Kentucky seeks 
recognition also.
  Mr. REID. I was going to get to that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We generally agreed, subject to the Senator's 
concurrence, that we would do that in the order of the Senator from 
Kentucky and then our friend from Utah.
  Mr. REID. I will bet my friend, the Senator from Kentucky, the hall 
of famer, is not here to brag about Alaska.
  I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator 
from Kentucky, the Senator from Utah be recognized as in morning 
business for up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, before I recognize my friend from 
Kentucky, I say I think it is rather interesting to reflect on the 
contentious portions that are in this bill. Everything focuses either 
on ANWR or the gas line. The electricity portion could be very complex. 
CAFE is going to be agonizing. Renewables are going to be agonizing.
  I was somewhat alerted by the whip who indicated this vote will be a 
60 vote. Ordinarily, on issues around here, 51 votes are enough to 
carry. But it is important to recognize the ground has already been 
laid, and the reason is interesting. It is contentious. When our 
national security is concerned, we should do all we can not to limit 
our options. I am fearful we are limiting our options.
  The House bill only prohibits the ``over the top'' route, which is 
what the whip alluded to. This would clearly address this point, and it 
would provide the alternatives that the economics dictate.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alaska, I recognize the many 
complicated and controversial issues in this legislation that are now 
here, or will be through amendment.
  This is not one of the weeks where we say if we finish Thursday we 
will have no votes on Friday. I know this will take time. I understand 
that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am not going anywhere. I want everybody to make sure 
they understand that clearly from the beginning this whole process was 
designed--and I don't think we are fooling anybody--to ensure that the

[[Page S1561]]

committee of jurisdiction did not get a chance to vote on it. An ANWR 
amendment would have been part of this bill because we had the votes. 
That is the bottom line.
  We have gone on from there into this extended synergy, which I do not 
think is in the best interests of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the pending 
energy bill. I am glad we're finally having this debate. It has been a 
long time coming.
  We desperately need a commonsense energy policy. Ever since the Arab 
oil embargoes over a quarter of a century ago, Congress has talked 
about passing a serious energy bill. Now is the time.
  Coming after the tragic events of September 11, it is more important 
than ever that we have a policy that not only helps us meet our energy 
needs, but also protects our national security. In the past Congress 
has failed to make progress on energy because we have fallen into the 
trap of choosing between conservation and production.
  But now I think that we have escaped that trap and reached the point 
where most of us in the Senate understand that a balanced energy policy 
must do both--it must help boost production of domestic energy sources 
as well as promote conservation.
  The bill before the Senate today is a decent starting point that 
attempts to strike a balance between conservation and production.
  There are some parts of the legislation that I support. For instance, 
eventually we are going to get a chance to vote on clean coal 
technology and ethanol provisions that are important to my State.
  I also like the tax proposals coming from the Finance Committee that 
would promote conservation and the expanded use of cleaner burning 
fuels.
  But overall the bill is too weak on production and contains several 
provisions that must be changed before the Senate finally passes a 
bill.
  First of all, we need to look at improving the production side. We 
must have an energy policy that helps reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil. This means that we have to finally get serious about ANWR.
  We deserve to have a straight up or down vote on ANWR. It's clear 
that a majority of the Senate supports safe drilling in ANWR.
  It is the most promising source of domestic energy we have. It is 
critical to our future and our national security.
  But because of the procedural gymnastics from the majority, it looks 
like we're not going to get a fair shot at voting on ANWR.
  That is wrong. ANWR is too important and the stakes are too high not 
to let the Senate work its will on this matter.
  I know that there are some in the Senate who are desperate to stop us 
from opening up in ANWR. The facts are not on their side. And a few of 
those facts bear repeating.
  ANWR is roughly the size of South Carolina, Maine, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire combined. It is absolutely 
enormous. But when we talk about drilling in ANWR, we are talking about 
clean drilling in an area of less than 2,000 acres--smaller than many 
airports in the United States.
  To say that drilling in this limited portion of ANWR threatens the 
entire environment of the refuge is far-fetched and alarmist.
  Recent advances in technology enable us to successfully extract oil 
in ANWR in an environmentally sensitive way. The old stereotypes of 
dirty oil drilling just don't apply anymore.
  In fact, if we do start exploring in ANWR, the drilling operations 
would be conducted under the most comprehensive environmental 
regulations in the world.
  We all want to do what we can to protect our world. But it is just 
not credible to say that looking for oil in this one small, limited 
part of ANWR is a dangerous threat to the entire region. Many of the 
environmentalists fail to see that if we do not begin oil production in 
ANWR, oil companies in the Middle East, Russia, and elsewhere--places 
where environmental regulations are much less restrictive than ours or 
even nonexistent--will take up the slack.
  Opening ANWR now might actually end up being more environmentally 
sensitive than the alternative. We also cannot escape the fact that 
drilling in ANWR, and boosting our domestic energy production, is 
vitally important to our national security.
  Right now we import 57 percent of the oil we use and the number is 
expected to jump to 64 percent by 2020. There are more than 10 billion 
barrels of oil recoverable in ANWR. That's enough to fuel all of 
Kentucky's oil needs for 82 years. That is also enough oil to replace 
the volume we currently import from Saudi Arabia or Iraq for the next 
25 years.
  Drilling in ANWR provisions would not only make a tremendous 
difference for our domestic consumption, but would constitute a serious 
step toward ensuring our national security.
  If the choice comes down to drilling in ANWR and lessening the chance 
that we will have to rely on Saddam Hussein and others in Middle East 
for our oil, then there is no choice at all.
  Today we produce less oil than we did in World War II. We must 
reverse this trend. Drilling in ANWR won't change things overnight, and 
no single source can totally end our dependence on foreign energy.
  But opening ANWR and boosting production are vital to this bill and 
to our national security.
  On a different subject, I also think that we need to take a long look 
at the CAFE provisions in the Kerry/Hollings language in the bill. 
Currently, the CAFE standards are 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 
20.7 miles per gallon for light trucks.
  The Kerry/Hollings provision in the bill would require a combined 
fleet fuel economy standard for cars and trucks to go to 35 miles per 
gallon by 2015. Their provision also would expand the definition of 
``light truck'' to include vehicles up to 10,000 pounds. That would 
cover most SUVs and minivans.
  Because the Kerry/Hollings provision changes current law by combining 
cars and trucks, that means that even if auto manufacturers can achieve 
28 miles per gallon for their light trucks, some manufacturers will be 
forced to boost their car standards up to 50 miles per gallon just to 
reach the overall 35 miles per gallon average. That's a dramatic jump 
from the current standards, and pushes too far too fast.
  The National Academy of Sciences recently studied this issue and the 
implications of raising CAFE standards on vehicle safety.
  NAS found that rapid increases in fuel economy standards for cars in 
the early 1980's likely contributed to thousands of additional highway 
deaths.
  Back then, auto manufacturers reduced the size and weight of their 
vehicles to help meet the new standards. But because the CAFE standards 
were raised too quickly, it turns out that making cars more fuel 
efficient also made them more deadly.
  Today, one of the main ways for a manufacturer to increase its CAFE 
standards is to downsize its fleet. In fact, since 1978 vehicles have 
shrunk in weight on average by more than 1,000 pounds per vehicle.
  At the same time, the death toll from car crashes has increased. 
Statistics show that in the last 25 years since fuel efficiency 
standards were first imposed, more than 40,000 people have died in 
crashes in which they might have otherwise survived had their vehicles 
been heavier.
  While more people have died because of the increased fuel efficiency, 
our fuel economy is not much better than it was in 1970. Much of this 
is because consumers have chosen bigger cars. They want SUVs and 
minivans to haul their children to soccer games and to go on vacations. 
And they want larger vehicles because they are safer, more comfortable, 
and more powerful.
  Consumers obviously are not asking for this mandate because they are 
choosing to continue to purchase larger vehicles despite other choices, 
including less expensive ones.
  Kerry Hollings would overly regulate consumer choice at the expense 
of safety.
  Because Kentucky has become one of the leading auto producing States 
in the country, I am also worried that the Kerry/Hollings provision 
would affect jobs. When the CAFE rules went into effect before, 
manufacturers spend huge sums of money to comply with the new rules. 
Because of that, many workers were layed off to help cut costs.

[[Page S1562]]

  Today over 160,000 Kentucky workers are employed in the auto industry 
or in a job dependent on car manufacturing. That's almost 10 percent of 
my State's workforce. But many of these jobs will be at risk if the 
Kerry/Hollings provision in this bill becomes law.
  I believe in increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles. I think we can 
and should do more on this front. But I do not believe that Congress 
picking a number out of thin air and mandating a target for 
manufacturers to hit is the way to go. Instead, I think we need to do 
what we can to encourage sound science by the industry that makes 
sound, incremental changes in fuel standards.
  Finally, I would like to say a few words about the procedure that was 
used to bring this bill to the floor. The process that this bill went 
through to finally reach the floor was a sham. Last October, when the 
Energy Committee was finally going to begin marking up the bill, it was 
abruptly pulled at the last minute. Then the Democrats began working on 
their own proposal. Now almost 6 months later we finally get a chance 
to see their handiwork.
  As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are parts of it that 
represent a good starting point. But there are serious problems with 
the measure, problems that probably would have been fixed in the Energy 
Committee. But because they did not have the votes in committee, the 
Democrats short-circuited the committee process and brought the bill 
straight to the floor.
  These procedural shortcomings have helped produce a flawed bill. If 
the legislation had gone through the usual legislative process, it 
would probably be a stronger, better bill. Many of us have to ask why 
did the majority do this. The answer appears to be that there was a 
fear that the energy bill coming out of the committee would include 
provisions such as ANWR for which we have the votes and that the 
majority leader decided to have this debate on the floor instead.
  That is fine. That has happened before around here. But that also 
means that we deserve to have a fair shot with our amendments on the 
floor. It's one thing to shut us out in committee, but it's a whole 
other matter to try to do so on the Senate floor as well.
  Let's have the debate on ANWR, on CAFE, and on other provisions and 
see where the votes are. If the full Senate is going to work its will 
on a sound policy, that's the least we can do. Anything else is going 
to produce a flawed, unbalanced bill that is not going to reflect well 
on the Senate and is not going to help the country.
  We need a sound energy bill and we need it now, and the best way to 
pass a constructive bill is to have a full, healthy debate on the floor 
about all of the issues involved--ANWR, CAFE, and all of the rest.
  If we have this debate, I think we can produce a balanced bill that 
increases production and conservation, produces jobs and makes a 
difference for our national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Utah begins his 
statement, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the 
Senator from Utah, Senator Jeffords be recognized for up to 30 minutes, 
and following that, that Senator Feingold be recognized to speak as in 
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________