[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 127 (Wednesday, October 2, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9808-S9809]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          CONFERENCE ON ENERGY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues an 
update on the conference on energy.
  As we all know, our President has asked for an energy bill. The bill 
was reported out of the House and the Senate, H.R. 4. We have been in 
conference for several days, off and on. Today we took up one of the 
more controversial provisions; that is, the disposition of ANWR.

[[Page S9809]]

  The House, in its offer to the Senate, proposed adding 10.2 million 
acres of wildernesses as an addition to the Nation's wilderness 
proposal. That would constitute about 72 million acres of wilderness in 
my State of Alaska.
  Without going into a lot of detail, I think we have to ask ourselves, 
indeed, if the Democratic leadership really wants an energy bill. From 
the beginning of this process, the committee of jurisdiction, the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, was not allowed to develop a 
bill out of the committee but, rather, it was developed out of the 
leader's office.
  Since that time, we have seen an effort to try to develop 
compromises, but clearly the presence of the majority leader has not 
been very evident. So I think we have to ask ourselves, on the issues 
in contention--whether it be climate, whether it be ethanol, whether it 
be electricity, whether it be the tax aspects, or the renewable 
portfolio standards--all of it suggests that a compromise is, indeed, 
possible in the sense of discussing what is certainly one of the 
lightning rod issues, and that is the opening of ANWR.
  With the offer by the House to create an additional 10.2 million 
acres, as a proposal to the Senate, it causes us concern relative to a 
provision when the State of Alaska accepted statehood. In the terms of 
statehood, there was a provision that there would be a ``no more'' 
clause; that means no more land designated without the concurrence of 
Alaskans. Nevertheless, this offer has been made.
  I hope the issue of the disposition of the energy bill does not 
become a political issue. We are nearing, of course, the elections. I 
recognize the temptation to suggest that the environmental groups, 
which are opposed to ANWR, are a force to be reckoned with in the 
coming election or the criticism of the Republicans, that they might be 
too close to the energy industry. I hope these arguments are not used 
as excuses for not getting a bill.
  Our President has asked for our bill. Our constituents have asked 
that we pass an energy bill. We have an obligation to do what is right 
for America, and that is to come to grips with the reality that we are, 
at this time, clearly in a conflict, the nature of which we can only 
hope will not result in outright war with Iraq.
  But the irony of that can best be associated with a quick overview of 
what we have been doing since 1992. We have been enforcing a no-fly 
zone over Iraq. In enforcing that no-fly zone, we have taken out 
targets in Iraq. We have endangered our young men and women in uniform 
who have been enforcing the no-fly zone.
  We have, in turn, imported anywhere from 600,000 to 900,000 barrels 
of oil a day from Iraq. It is almost as if we take his oil, put it in 
our airplanes, and go bomb him and enforce the no-fly zone. And he 
takes the money we pay for the oil and develops weapons of mass 
destruction, whether it be biological, chemical, or developing a 
nuclear capability. He develops a delivery system and aims it at our 
ally, Israel.
  So unless we lessen our dependence on imported oil by developing more 
oil here at home, why, clearly, we are going to continue to have to 
depend on foreign sources, such as Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
  For those who wonder about the merits of opening this area, I remind 
my colleagues that in 1995 the Senate passed an authorization to open 
ANWR. It was in the omnibus bill. President Clinton vetoed it. Had that 
been done, we would have that oil on line now, and we certainly would 
have an idea of the magnitude of the fields that exist in that area.
  The last point I want to make is its contribution to jobs and the 
economy. It is estimated there would be some 750,000 new jobs 
associated with opening this area, including development of 19 new U.S. 
flag-built tankers that would be built in U.S. yards.
  So I urge my colleagues to come together and recognize, in the spirit 
of compromise, we should resolve the issues remaining in the energy 
bill. We should report out the bill containing ANWR, which will reduce 
our dependence on imported oil, and move on with what is good for 
America, and that is to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, follow 
the recommendations of the President, and pass an energy bill.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________