[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19152-19153]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 19152]]

                  DEVELOPING A BALANCED ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I will try to be 
brief to accommodate my colleagues who are seeking recognition.


  I would like to call attention to a release that came out of the 
majority and the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, Senator Jeff Bingaman, indicating that at the request of the 
majority leader, Senator Daschle, the chairman of the Energy Committee, 
Senator Bingaman, suspend any further markup of energy legislation for 
this session of Congress. I emphasize ``this session of Congress.'' 
That sounds pretty definitive to me. Instead, I quote the release:

       The chairman will propose comprehensive and balanced energy 
     legislation that can be added--

  I emphasize ``can be added.'' It doesn't say ``will be added;'' it 
says ``can be added''--

     by the majority leader to the Senate Calendar for potential 
     action--

  It doesn't say ``action;'' it says ``potential action.''
  I certainly have the highest respect for the majority leader. I 
notice that this is very carefully worded. It says that it ``can be 
added;'' it doesn't say ``will.'' Not that there is a proposed action 
but ``potential action.''
  Very frankly, that is not good enough for me. I will ask the majority 
leader to specifically respond as to whether or not he intends to 
develop a balanced energy bill. I question the word ``balanced'' 
because that means no input from the minority, no input from the 
Republicans, an effort to circumvent the committee of jurisdiction, the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, of which I am the ranking 
member. I question how it could be balanced.
  So I urge the leader to address specifically whether he will take up 
and introduce an energy bill, and whether or not it will be placed on 
the calendar, and whether or not we will have sufficient time to offer 
amendments on the issue of fairness and equity in the contribution of 
the minority.
  I would also add, the reason for this action, apparently, is twofold. 
One is the question of jurisdiction. In other words, there are other 
committees involved. There is the Committee on Finance, on which I 
serve, relative to tax implications associated with an energy bill. And 
as you tax forgiveness, accelerated depreciation, here is obviously the 
role of the Committee on Environment and Public Works in certain 
areas--perhaps the Committee on the Judiciary. But clearly, the 
majority of the jurisdiction is within the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  We have been working a long time on this. We began and introduced a 
bill early in the session, early in February, as a matter of fact. We 
have been working with Senator Bingaman on his comprehensive bill. We 
were committed to try to report out, tomorrow, Senator Bingaman's 
expedited bill on energy infrastructure, which I support.
  I do not know the rationale. I can only assume that perhaps the 
leadership thought there was not the votes in the committee to block 
certain amendments that might come up or perhaps the majority thought 
there is not the support in the Chamber to stop an energy bill.
  I think it is interesting to note that the public polling indicates 
about two-thirds of the individuals polled nationwide support an energy 
bill; polling on the contentious issue of ANWR is about 64 to 36 in 
favor.
  So as we address what is behind this shroud of sudden reluctance to 
pursue an energy bill, one can only deduce that perhaps they did not 
want to give the President a victory. The President, as we know, 
presented an energy package very early, an energy task force report, 
and it worked to try to get that through.
  We have held numerous hearings. We have had hundreds of witnesses. We 
are about at the altar, so to speak, and suddenly the rug has been 
pulled out from under the authorizing committee.
  Another point that was brought up is that this might be contentious; 
there might be differences of opinion. That is what the amendment 
process is all about. We need a vote. We need a vote, an up-down vote 
on an energy package. We need an up-down vote, in a democratic manner, 
on the proposed amendments that would be offered.
  So I would first encourage the majority leader to reconsider his 
action and let the committee do its work and report out a bill and 
schedule it for action on the floor. If he does not, I would ask that 
he consider giving us the assurance that his bill will go on the 
calendar prior to adjournment; that we will have time to take up 
amendments and debate it in its entirety.
  Mr. President, I am going to conclude my remarks--and I see another 
Senator seeking recognition--but I will be directing further remarks 
later on tying in, if you will, how terrorism is funded, and the 
realization that written statements from bin Laden, who we all agree is 
the perpetrator, to a large degree, behind much of the terrorism, are 
directly related to his appeal to many of the Muslims relative to the 
issue of our increased dependence on Mideast oil and his belief that 
the United States owes Muslims $36 trillion as a payback for ``the 
biggest theft in history,'' and that is the purchase of cheap oil from 
the Persian Gulf.
  Bin Laden claims that the United States has carried out ``the biggest 
theft in history'' by buying oil from Persian Gulf countries at low 
prices. According to bin Laden, a barrel of oil today should sell for 
$144. And based on that calculation, he said the Americans have stolen 
$36 trillion from Muslims; and they owe each member of the Muslim faith 
$30,000.
  There might be some motivation there, but there is certainly a 
communication of consideration.
  I yield the floor and thank my colleague who is seeking recognition, 
the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business and that my time will count against cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, as it turns out, I am pleased to be 
speaking immediately after the Senator from Alaska and thank him for 
the sentiments he shared with all of us. It is not the first time we 
have heard these sentiments, but it is a message he has delivered 
consistently.
  I have been in this body less than a year, as a new Member of the 
Senate. I came to the Senate as an old Governor, as did the Presiding 
Officer. And we, as Governors, tend to be more anxious to get things 
done. We are not so much interested in rhetoric, not so much interested 
in symbolism; we want results. We are not interested in process. We 
want product.
  Before I ever got into politics, before I moved to Delaware, I was a 
naval flight officer. I finished up my tour of duty in 1973. I moved to 
Delaware to go to the University of Delaware Business School on the GI 
bill.
  One of my first memories being in Delaware, 28 years ago, literally 
this month, was sitting in line to buy gasoline for my car because we 
were in the midst of an energy crisis--embargo--at the time and it was 
tough to buy gasoline.
  I thought, 28 years ago, we needed an energy policy for our country. 
Twenty-eight years later, we still need an energy policy for our 
country. We did not have one then; and we do not have one now.
  We have learned a number of difficult lessons coming out of the 
tragic events of September 11, but, for me, one of them is that, more 
than ever, we need a comprehensive energy policy that will reduce our 
reliance on foreign oil, that will enable us to provide more energy 
from within our own country--some of it from corn that is grown in 
Indiana, some of it from soybeans that are raised in Delaware, some of 
it from wind, and even some that is harvested from the Sun. We should 
seek energy from a variety of sources, as well as from the over 500 
years of coal beneath the ground of this country, and from nuclear 
powerplants that provide roughly 20 percent of the electricity in this 
country.
  And in addition to producing new energy sources, we need to conserve 
energy. There is so much we can do to conserve energy, and not just 
with moving from internal combustion engines in our cars, trucks, and 
vans to

[[Page 19153]]

hybrid-powered vehicles, to eventually, this decade, fuel cells. We can 
literally go out today and buy, off the shelf, air-conditioners that 
use half the electricity that most of the air-conditioners in our homes 
use. The same is true for the furnaces that will warm our homes this 
winter.
  The question before us now is, How do we proceed to an energy bill? 
How do we take it up? I have been urging my leadership, for months now, 
to take up an energy bill. My guess is, before I finish, my leader will 
regret having ever put me on the Energy Committee, but I want us to 
debate and report to this body, and to debate in this Chamber, an 
energy bill. I want to have a chance to do it this month. I want us to 
have a chance to vote up or down on Senator Murkowski's proposal of 
opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I want us to have a 
chance to vote on a whole host of other issues. But I want us to debate 
them, and vote on them, and move on. I do not want the debate to be, in 
what form do we bring the bill to the floor? Do we go through the 
Energy Committee? Do we then go through the Finance Committee, and then 
the Environment and Commerce Committees because they have jurisdiction 
over different parts of the bill.
  I want to get the bill to the floor. And as we do, I want to make 
sure that the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from Delaware, the 
Senator from Indiana, and others, have every opportunity to amend that 
bill in ways that are germane to the legislation that is before us. 
Debate them, vote them up or down, and move on.
  As it turns out, there is probably a lot more on this front that we 
agree on than we disagree on. One of the ways to find that out for sure 
is to have the debate.
  I pledge to my colleague from Alaska and my colleague from Indiana to 
do my dead-level best within the Democratic caucus, within the Energy 
Committee itself, and with my own leadership to make sure we have the 
opportunity to have fair and open debate on the amendments and a policy 
that we can then work out with the House and send something to the 
President to sign.
  We may actually have a chance of coming closer to producing a 
comprehensive energy policy by taking the approach Senator Daschle has 
now suggested. We may actually have a better chance of getting to the 
debate and the adoption of an energy bill than we would have had if we 
had gone to regular order. I was not so sure of that 24 hours ago, but 
having thought it through, I think we may enhance the chances for those 
of us who want a comprehensive energy policy.
  I ask all of my colleagues to work across the aisle, within the 
committees of jurisdiction, and in the Chamber, and have a good debate 
this month or next month and be ready to cast the tough votes and to 
move on.
  I yield the floor and 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask that I be allowed to speak as in 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________