[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 46 (Tuesday, April 23, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3114-S3115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE ENERGY BILL

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I want to take a moment to discuss where we are 
currently in the continued movement on the energy bill.
  A cloture motion was filed last Thursday, and we are looking forward 
to moving forward on this bill. I know many Members have been somewhat 
frustrated with the pace. We have been on the bill almost 6 weeks, not 
continually but certainly for the most part.
  I know the majority leader is working in good faith, and I support 
his efforts to move the bill forward in a timely manner, but I remind 
my colleagues that we are on an extremely difficult and complex piece 
of legislation. We have divisive issues, and we have dealt with them as 
best we could through a process of amendments.
  Since the debate on this issue began, we have had 172 amendments--
some 60 Republican, 112 Democratic. We have dispensed with 92 
amendments--35 Republican, 57 Democratic. Most of the remaining 
amendments are currently on the other side of the aisle, but that is 
neither here nor there. I am sure we can deal with them in a relatively 
short timeframe.
  Some of the more difficult amendments we have dealt with are: Whether 
Congress should decide on new vehicle standards or leave that 
discretion to the experts, specifically CAFE standards; whether 
Congress should impose a renewable portfolio standard on some

[[Page S3115]]

electricity producers or leave the decision on appropriate renewable 
portfolio standards to the States; whether the Federal Government 
should continue the liability and introduce protection on our nuclear 
plants; that is, Price-Anderson. I think the sustainability and 
expansion of the nuclear industry certainly represents protection on 
that particular issue of limiting the liability for the industry if we 
are ever going to get nuclear power generation in this country. 
Further, how best to ensure reliability on our electricity grid--that 
was the reliability issue and significant progress was made on that--
and whether to create a renewable fuels requirement, ethanol.

  Our work is not complete. There are still many significant issues to 
resolve. We need to close out the issues dealing with electricity. We 
need to reach some agreement on the massive climate change provision in 
the bill. We must address the tax provisions for renewables, 
conservation, alternative fuels, efficiency, and production. We need to 
decide how best to increase our domestic production of energy sources 
since there are no real production provisions in the substitute we have 
before us.
  On the issue of supporting cloture, a vote in favor of cloture would 
cut off any opportunity to adopt a rational tax component on energy 
legislation, which I believe is so important in this package--taxes 
that would encourage the use of renewables, alternative fuels, increase 
our efficiency relative to conservation, increase our production of 
conventional fuels.
  As far as oil is concerned, as this bill now stands, there is not one 
single provision that would increase our domestic production of oil 
because the tax package is not part of the bill at this time.
  There are numerous studies and authorizations regarding oil 
production in title VI but no specific new production. As it stands 
now, this measure, in my opinion, is neither balanced nor 
comprehensive. In fact, many provisions in the legislation specifically 
exclude production of oil from the energy incentives.
  The irony is that while there are provisions in the bill dealing with 
wind, solar, and biomass, these energy sources are not currently 
threatened by events around the world. I know of no world leaders 
calling for--or with the ability to--cutting off our wind supply or our 
Sun, although Saddam Hussein may be up to it. In any event, we are at a 
time when many in the Arab world are calling for using oil as a weapon 
against the United States.
  We have seen today a release from Iraq where Saddam Hussein is quoted 
as indicating he will pay $25,000 for any of the Palestinians who may 
have lost their homes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That comes 
after a previous statement by Saddam Hussein about providing payment to 
the survivors and family members of any of the individuals who saw fit 
to strap themselves with bombs and be used to initiate terrorist 
attacks associated with the issue in Israel, providing $25,000 to their 
families. I think that clearly is an incentive that those of us in the 
Western world find totally unacceptable and reprehensible.
  As some in this Chamber may recall, on Thursday we passed, by a vote 
of 88 to 10, a sanction against Iraqi oil. The logic for that was the 
very fact that Saddam Hussein had seen fit to foster terrorism by 
providing incentives for human beings to be used as bombs in crowded 
areas. Furthermore, a justification for that deserves another 
reflection because we also saw several years ago sanctions against 
Libya, and the sanctions against Libya were justified because of 
terrorist attacks associated with the downing of the Pan Am flight over 
Scotland. Previous to that, we had initiated sanctions against Iraq 
under the same rationale. The attack on our U.S. Embassy in Iran is 
evidence of the country fostering terrorism.

  So for anyone, including the administration, who might be critical of 
the action taken by the Senate, I remind them there is a principle 
involved, as our President stated on numerous occasions, that we will 
not stand by and let anyone or any country or any leader foster 
terrorism or use it as an incentive. That, clearly, is the case with 
Saddam Hussein. Hence, I think the action by the Senate last Thursday 
was most appropriate in terminating any imports of oil from Iraq.
  So as we recognize today, again, some in the Arab world are calling 
for using oil as a weapon against this country. They do this at the 
same time they use the hard currency revenues from our dependence on 
their oil to fund homicide bombers and state-supported terrorism.
  We must protect ourselves, and the tax title in the bill would help 
to slightly rectify this by providing incentives for marginal oil 
production, and heavy oil production as well, which would decrease our 
dependence on imported oil.
  In the area of natural gas, we do have a provision dealing with the 
Alaskan natural gas pipeline and the underlying provisions in the 
development of that gas. The majority has indicated they recognize this 
is a provision that would create somewhere in the area of 400,000 jobs. 
However, as it currently stands, the provision would not create one job 
if cloture is invoked.
  So without any real economic security, the project, of course, may 
not become a reality. I am sure we are all aware of this, but I 
certainly cannot agree to have moved this position this far and not see 
it completed.
  In the interest of moving forward--I know the majority leader wants 
to move forward, and the minority leader as well. I understand that 
amendments involving the death and estate tax complicated the efforts. 
Certainly, cloture would end that provision. However, I think there is 
a better way. I propose we try to enter into a unanimous consent 
agreement--I understand there has been a shot at it now--that would 
limit the number of remaining amendments to be debated on energy-
related amendments and limit that number by first-degree amendments. 
These would be specific amendments so the issue of germaneness would 
not come up.
  If we are able to get such an agreement, I believe we could be off 
this bill by the end of the week. I would certainly be willing to work 
toward that end. Of course, it is not going to be an easy task. We 
still have the divisive issues of climate change to deal with, but I 
think it is possible to do that.
  My purpose is to pledge my support to improve the legislation before 
us and get a bill to the President as soon as possible. I urge my 
colleagues to recognize the weight of the task before us to push aside 
some of the personal agendas and do what is right for the Nation, and 
that is to adopt an energy policy as developed in this bill by an 
amendment process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.

                          ____________________