[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21195-21200]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would just like to share a few 
remarks at this time concerning the energy bill. We need to improve our 
production of energy within the United States, and I would like to 
share a few thoughts about why I think it is a critical part of 
stimulating the economy.
  At this time of economic slowdown, we need to create circumstances 
that will allow the economy to grow and flower. It has struck me for 
some time--and I have mentioned this on the floor previously--that our 
economic slowdown began over a year ago, and it began not long after we 
saw a tremendous surge in the price of energy. The price of a barrel of 
oil in the United States was as low as $13 a barrel. It soon leaped to 
$30 a barrel. And 60 percent of all the oil we utilize in the United 
States is purchased abroad.
  So there was a tremendous transfer of American wealth. We got no more 
oil--not a single barrel of oil--but we were paying more than twice as 
much for that oil as we were paying just months before it surged 
upward.
  That drained a great deal of money from this economy. It 
demonstrated, with great clarity, the dependence we have on foreign 
oil. And most of the reserves of foreign oil are in the Middle East. It 
has pointed out the dangers we face if we do not make some changes.
  Now we are engaged in hostilities in the Middle East, and we see, 
once again, just how fragile that supply of oil is to our Nation, and 
how quickly it can be interrupted.
  Our economy needs to improve. I think it is incumbent on us to 
consider, quite seriously, reforming our energy laws so that we can 
produce more energy in this country. If we can do that, we will be able 
to keep more money at home. So when a well is drilled, the question is, 
Will it be drilled in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Iraq or Kuwait, or will 
it be drilled somewhere in the United States? When it is

[[Page 21196]]

drilled here, not only does the money stay here--the royalties that are 
paid to the State or the landowner for the oil--but all the people who 
drill the well, all the people who work at it, process the oil, and 
move that oil from the wellhead site--all of those people will be paid 
salaries; and then they will pay taxes. They will help reduce our 
unemployment, increase tax revenue, and provide income for American 
workers.
  So we need to do a number of things to improve our energy situation 
so that we reduce the drain on our economy from the constant purchase 
of oil abroad.
  Conservation is a critical part of that. The more we can reduce the 
use of oil and gas in America, then the less demand we have to transfer 
wealth abroad to purchase it. At the same time, the more we can produce 
in the United States, the greater our chance will be to churn that 
money again within the United States, creating jobs, salaries, 
retirements, and health care benefits, as well as taxes for our States 
and our governments, our local school systems, and the Federal 
Government. It will strengthen our economy in a number of ways.
  I think improving our energy production would be a critical step in 
revitalizing our economy. I do not think it is coincidental that we 
began to sink not long after we saw a tripling of the price of oil on 
the world market.
  I am delighted to see the ranking member of the Energy Committee, 
Senator Murkowski, in this Chamber. I know he wants to speak on this 
issue. He has been a constant, steady advocate for America: What is 
good for American workers, what is good for this country, what we need 
to do to remain economically strong.
  If we do not remain economically strong, we cannot do the good things 
in this country, and around the world, we want to do.
  He has been a great champion of that. As I said, I see he is in this 
Chamber. I suspect he would like to talk on the energy issue in more 
detail.
  I thank him for his leadership and yield the floor to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, let me acknowledge the comments of my 
good friend. He and I have shared stands on many issues; and one that I 
think is prominent at this time, as indicated, is on the issue relative 
to the request by our President that we have and pass an energy policy, 
and that we do it with dispatch.
  Our President has spoken out four times in the last 2 weeks, 
indicating the general observation that, indeed, we need an energy 
bill.
  Quoting from a late October release, the statement is made that:

       Tax relief is only part of the job. We need an energy plan 
     for America. Under the leadership of the Vice President, we 
     have drafted a comprehensive, common sense plan for the 
     future of our country.

  It further states that:

       It has passed the House of Representatives in H.R. 4. It 
     needs a vote in the U.S. Senate. We need to be more self-
     reliant and more self-sufficient.

  On October 17, he indicated:

       I ask Congress to now act on an energy bill. The House of 
     Representatives passed its bill in August. This is an issue 
     of special importance to California, the State of Washington 
     [which the Presiding Officer represents]. Too much of our 
     energy comes from the Mideast. The plan I sent up to Congress 
     promotes conservation, expands energy supplies, and improves 
     the efficiency of our energy network. Our country needs 
     greater energy independence.

  On October 4:

       There are two other aspects to a good, strong economic 
     stimulus.

  I note that the President uses the words ``economic stimulus.''

       One is trade promotion authority, and the other is an 
     energy bill. I urge the Senate to listen to the will of the 
     Senators and move forward on a bill that will help Americans 
     find work and also make it easier for all of us around the 
     table to protect the security of the country.

  We have spent a lot of time talking about homeland security. An 
integral piece of homeland security is energy independence. I ask the 
Senate to respond to the call to get an energy bill moving.''
  The President made another comment to a group today asking again that 
this body move on an energy bill. It would be derelict if we are to 
conclude this session without addressing an energy bill.
  We are not alone. I have letters here from the American Legion, 
Vietnam Veterans Institute, Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, Gold Star 
Wives of America, Catholic War Veterans, Survivors of Pearl Harbor, all 
who participated in a press conference yesterday here in Washington.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following letters be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          The American Legion,

                                 Washington, DC, October 25, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: We write today out of a sense of 
     urgency concerning our national security, as it relates to 
     our need for energy independence. The development of 
     America's domestic energy resources is vital to our national 
     security. We respectfully urge you to adopt the provisions 
     contained in H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy 
     Act of 2001.''
       War and international terrorism have again brought into 
     sharp focus the heavy reliance of the United States on 
     imported oil. During times of crises, such reliance threatens 
     our national security and economic well being. The import of 
     more than 50 percent of our petroleum from the Persian Gulf 
     further compounds our foreign trade balance at a time when 
     our energy demands continue unabated. It is important that we 
     develop domestic sources of oil, contained within our public 
     lands--such as the supplies within the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge.
       Working for a comprehensive energy policy and achieving 
     responsible energy independence are critical national 
     security and economic goals. H.R. 4, as passed by the House 
     of Representatives, is a major step forward to achieving 
     these imperative goals. We strongly urge your support.
           Sincerely,
                                                Richard J. Santos,
     National Commander.
                                  ____



                                   Vietnam Veterans Institute,

                                                 October 30, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Daschle: We write today out of a sense of 
     urgency concerning our national security as it relates to our 
     energy supply. The development of America's domestic energy 
     resources is vital to our national security. We respectfully 
     urge you to immediately pass H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy 
     legislation.
       We are pleased the House of Representatives, acting with 
     bipartisan support, addressed our energy vulnerability by 
     passing H.R. 4, the `Securing America's Future Energy Act of 
     2001' or the `SAFE Act of 2001.' It is imperative the Senate 
     do the same. Following the horrific events of September 11, 
     2001, failure to pass this bill would pose a threat to our 
     people, our economy, and our national security, that we all 
     wore the uniform to maintain.
       All Americans, as well as our military troops, need this 
     legislation enacted into law. If we intend to rebuild our 
     economy and continue the campaign against international 
     terrorism and those who attacked us, we must develop domestic 
     sources of oil contained within our public lands--such as the 
     supplies within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We must 
     be able to rely to the fullest extent possible on our own 
     resources to provide for the maintenance of our economy at 
     home and our prolonged war effort abroad.
       By passing H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy legislation 
     now, the Senate will be supporting our troops in the field 
     and all working Americans, including those displaced by this 
     heartless act of aggression. We, as Veterans, stand united 
     and cannot overstate the importance of this legislation, and 
     respectfully request you lead the Senate by voting on and 
     passing H.R. 4 so our nation can move forward in defense of 
     freedom around the world.
       We know that when the chips are down, America can and will 
     stand and fight, using all its resources and all its might to 
     defend our nation and the cause of freedom around the world. 
     Join us in this cause. Pass the comprehensive energy bill and 
     help us rebuild America!
       With the support of our members,
                                                   J. Eldon Yates,
     Chairman and Founder.
                                  ____



                                                       AMVETS,

                                     Lanham, MD, October 26, 2001.
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     The Capitol, Washington, DC
       Dear Senator Daschle: On behalf of AMVETS, I am writing to 
     encourage you to bring H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future

[[Page 21197]]

     Energy Act of 2001, before the full Senate for consideration 
     at the earliest possible moment prior to the close of the 1st 
     Session of the 107th Congress.
       As you know, our current reliance on foreign oil leaves the 
     United States vulnerable to the whim of individual oil-
     exporting countries, many existing in the unpredictable and 
     highly dangerous Persian Gulf. And it cannot be overstated 
     that energy supplies touch nearly every aspect of our lives 
     from our economy to our national security.
       Passage of H.R. 4, would greatly assist in our ability to 
     secure a more dependable and diversified domestic supply of 
     energy. And, I would note that since the Persian Gulf War our 
     security has become more threatened with our dependence on 
     foreign sources of oil growing from 35 percent of domestic 
     supply to nearly 60 percent.
       AMVETS firmly believes that we cannot wait for the next 
     crisis before we act. H.R. 4, as approved by the House, is a 
     critical part of an overall policy America requires to 
     promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound 
     production and distribution of energy for the future. We urge 
     your expedited approval of this legislation.
       Dedicated to service,
                                               Joseph W. Lipowski,
     National Commander.
                                  ____


Statement Of Our Nation's Veterans Group ``Our Domestic Energy Security 
              is Our National Security'', October 30, 2001

       We, the undersigned, representing our nation's veterans, 
     strongly believe that the development of America's domestic 
     energy resources is a vital national security priority. The 
     horrific events of September 11, 2001, constitute a threat to 
     our people, our economy, and our nation's security. With U.S. 
     troops actively engaged in combat overseas, we firmly believe 
     that America can and will win this prolonged war against 
     terrorism, using all its resources to defend our nation and 
     the cause of freedom around the world.
       Because of these beliefs, we applaud the House of 
     Representatives for its bipartisan work in addressing our 
     energy vulnerability by passing H.R. 4, the ``Securing 
     America's Future Energy Act of 2001'' or the ``SAFE Act of 
     2001.'' It is imperative that the Senate pass the House 
     version of H.R. 4 so that our nation can move forward in 
     establishing our energy security, as well as our defense of 
     freedom at home and abroad. It is essential for us to develop 
     all domestic energy resources including the supplies within 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
       By passing H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy legislation, 
     the Senate will be supporting our troops in the field, all 
     Americans, their families, and our nation. We, as Veterans, 
     stand united and respectfully request that the Senate vote on 
     and pass H.R. 4.

                                               J. Eldon Yates,

                                             Chairman and Founder,
                                       Vietnam Veterans Institute.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. These letters indicate their support for energy 
legislation to be passed out of the U.S. Senate. From October 25:

       Dear Senator Daschle: We write today out of a sense of 
     urgency concerning our national security as it relates to our 
     need for energy independence. The development of America's 
     energy resources is vital to our national security. We 
     respectfully urge you to adopt the provisions contained in 
     H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001.''

  The House has acted. This letter was signed by the American Legion.
  Here is a quote from the AMVETS letter:

       On behalf of AMVETS, I am writing to encourage you to bring 
     H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001, to 
     the full Senate for consideration.

  The Vietnam Veterans Institute:

       We write today out of a sense of urgency concerning our 
     national security as it relates to our energy supply.

  The important point is that each one of these organizations reflect 
on our energy supply in conjunction with our national security.
  They further state:

       If we intend to rebuild our economy and continue the 
     campaign against international terrorism and those who 
     attacked us, we must develop domestic sources of oil 
     contained within our public lands--such as supplies within 
     the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We must be able to rely, 
     to the fullest extent possible, on our own resources. . .

  That is signed by J. Eldon Yates, chairman and founder of the Vietnam 
Veterans Institute. We have our Nation's veterans groups also signing 
on as well. These represent a pretty significant voice of those who 
gave so much for America, for the freedoms we enjoy and the realization 
that we can never properly repay the contribution made by our veterans.
  I note in the letter from the American Legion:

       War and international terrorism have again brought into 
     sharp focus the heavy reliance of the United States on 
     imported oil. During these times of crisis, such reliance 
     threatens again our national security and economic well-
     being. The importation of more than 50 percent of our 
     petroleum from the Persian Gulf further compounds our foreign 
     trade deficit at a time when our energy demands continue 
     unabated. It is important that we develop domestic sources of 
     oil contained within our public lands, such as the supplies 
     within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

  We have a pretty good representation of what America's veterans think 
about the necessity of this body passing an energy bill. It is 
important to note that one member of this body, the junior Senator from 
Massachusetts, is quoted as saying, with regard to his comments on 
patriotism vis-a-vis ANWR:

       This is not the moment to falsely cloak in the mantle of 
     patriotism a choice as clear and as critical as the choice 
     about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

  I will let the Senator speak for himself relative to an explanation. 
It is in deep contrast to the attitude prevailing among America's 
veterans organizations.
  If we look at reality associated with what is happening in the world 
today, we can reflect on just how we have compromised ourselves into a 
position of vulnerability. There is a gentleman who was a Member of 
this body for many years, Mark Hatfield of Oregon. Mark Hatfield was a 
pacifist. I think I can liberally use that general terminology. His 
position on opening up this area of public lands in my State of Alaska 
was very clear. He said: I will support opening up ANWR any day rather 
than send another American man or woman into harm's way to fight a war 
on foreign soil. Make no mistake about it, that is just what we are 
doing today; we are fighting a war on foreign soil.
  What is the last war we fought over oil? We have to go back to the 
Persian Gulf conflict. We have to go back to what Saddam Hussein of 
Iraq was basically up to, what his objective was. His objective was to 
go into Kuwait, invade Kuwait and go into Saudi Arabia. He knew that he 
could control the world's supply of oil, and the power and influence 
that would come as a consequence of that would certainly put him in the 
driver's seat relative to policies in the Mideast.
  What are we doing today? We are importing somewhere between 700,000 
and a million barrels of oil from Iraq, from our friend Saddam Hussein. 
What do we do with that oil? We enforce an aerial blockade to a large 
degree because we fly our planes over enforcing the no-fly zone. It 
might be compared to a blockade at sea, only this is one in the air. We 
are putting in danger our men and women as they enforce this. They take 
out targets, radar targets, from time to time. He attempts to shoot us 
down. He shot down a couple of drones. He has almost shot down one of 
our interceptor aircraft. As a consequence, as we continue this policy, 
our vulnerability is evident.
  In so doing, he takes our money, pays his Republican Guards for 
protection, develops a missile capability, develops, for all practical 
purposes, activities associated with fostering terrorism, he develops a 
biological weapons capability. Who does he aim it at? He aims at our 
ally Israel.
  That is a consequence of the United States losing its leverage 
relative to its continued dependence on Mideast oil.
  We see the latest press release dated October 25, AP, ``Qatar Calls 
For Oil Production Cuts.'' We all know what this means. This means the 
OPEC nations are coming together to reduce the supply so that the price 
of oil can be increased in that range of $22 to $25.
  We see another headline, from Washington Post, October 26, ``Iraq 
Caught Smuggling Oil, U.N. Official Says.''
  As we all know, Iraq is under economic sanctions regime. The U.N. has 
control, up to a point, over monitoring the sale of oil from Iraq. But 
what Iraq has been doing is they have been cheating. What they do is 
they bring a tanker into their port. There is a certification on a bill 
of lading for so many barrels of oil. The U.N. inspectors sign off on 
it. And then after they leave, they fill up the rest of the tanker with

[[Page 21198]]

illegal oil, and, obviously, the profits go to Saddam Hussein.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 26, 2001]

             Iraq Caught Smuggling Oil, U.N. Official Says

                            (By Colum Lynch)

       United Nations, Oct. 25.--Iraq was caught smuggling $10 
     million worth of oil through an Athens-based shipping company 
     in violation of U.N. sanctions, the United Nations said 
     today. U.S. and U.N. officials have long suspected Iraq of 
     siphoning between $1 billion to $2 billion in oil revenue 
     each year. But this is the first time that the United Nations 
     has obtained hard evidence to support those suspicions. Under 
     the terms of a U.N. oil-for-food program begun in 1996, Iraq 
     is allowed to sell oil to buy humanitarian goods, pay 
     restitution to the victims of the Persian Gulf War and fund 
     improvements in the country's infrastructure. Iraq exported 
     more than $18 billion worth of oil last year.
       Benon Sevan, the executive director of the program, 
     provided the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday with a letter 
     from a Greek captain who has admitted illegally exporting 
     500,000 barrels of Iraqi crude during two trips to the 
     Persian Gulf port of Mina Al-Bakr in May and August. 
     Chiladakis Theofanis, captain of the oil tanker Essex, wrote 
     to the United Nations and the United States in September that 
     Iraq loaded 1.8 million barrels into his vessel on May 16 
     while a team of U.N. inspectors looked on.
       When the U.N. officials left the site, the Iraqis pumped an 
     additional 230,000 barrels of crude into the tanker and 
     provided a bill of lading for the additional oil to a company 
     called Roundhead Inc., Sevan said. A similar scheme was 
     repeated on Aug. 27.
       ``The ships involved first loaded the quantities of oil 
     which were authorized under the program,'' Sevan said in a 
     letter to the Security Council committee that oversees Iraq's 
     oil exports. ``After United Nations inspection agents had 
     finalized their activities on board of the ships, the load 
     pumps on the platform were allegedly restarted in order to 
     load additional volumes of oil on the vessels.'' Iraq's 
     ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammed Douri, denied the 
     charges.
       The Security Council has been attempting to stop the Iraqi 
     smuggling but has encountered resistance from Russia, which 
     has contended there is little proof. Russia has blocked a 
     U.S.-British proposal to revise the sanctions policy against 
     Iraq.
       The proposal aims to ease civilian imports while tightening 
     the controls on oil smuggling and the purchase or prohibited 
     weapons. Moscow favors steps aimed at lifting the sanctions 
     entirely. The oil-for-food program will be up for renewal on 
     Nov. 30.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It indicates that when the U.N. officials left the 
site, the Iraqis pumped an additional 230,000 barrels of crude oil into 
the tanker and provided a bill of lading for the additional oil to a 
company called Roundhead Incorporated. This was repeated again on the 
27th. The estimated revenue that has come into Iraq is indicated to be 
between $1 and $2 billion in additional revenue as a consequence of 
these activities.
  We know this cheating is going on. We are about to face the reality 
that the price of oil is going to be increasing as OPEC recognizes the 
vulnerability of the United States.
  I want to share one more thing with the Senate. This is the 
foreboding reality of the future. Some of us around here remember what 
happened in Iran a little over a decade ago. The fall of the Shah. The 
Shah fell. How did he fall? He fell in a revolution that occurred as a 
consequence of the unrest in that country at that time.
  I would suggest that the record would note that the same set of 
circumstances are very much in evidence in Saudi Arabia today.
  You may recall the Greek myth about Cassandra, who had the ability to 
predict the future, combined with the curse that nobody would believe 
her. When it comes to energy, I am beginning to feel somewhat like 
Cassandra.
  I have come to this floor week after week pointing out the peril of 
our current energy situation and the looming disaster that is our 
energy future if we simply maintain our current course. I have come 
before this Senate week after week calling for a balanced and 
responsive energy policy to the crisis ahead, a policy that stresses 
production and conservation, which promotes the development of 
alternative energies, as well as prudent development of traditional 
resources.
  Earlier this year, Senator Breaux and I submitted a bipartisan energy 
bill that had over 300 pages. The bill had extensive proposals for 
conservation and alternatives. But the only thing most of the 
colleagues focused on was the 2 pages covering a small sliver of the 
Arctic in my State of Alaska known as ANWR. That is where the lightning 
rod was, Madam President.
  As we know, we are living in a new era today, after September 11. Our 
country and our way of life were attacked on that date, and we are in 
the midst of the anthrax scare. It is, in all likelihood, closely 
connected with the attacks in New York and Washington. What do 
September 11 and the subsequent events have to do with energy? I say, 
everything.



  At the risk of sounding like a Cassandra again, I want to set out the 
facts as they are known now and invite this body to look into the 
future.
  Fact No. 1: Every reputable scientific study of our future energy 
consumption suggests that, even with dramatic conservation and rapid 
development of economical alternatives, our dependence on oil as a 
percentage of overall energy use will increase for the next 20 years. 
Whether we like it or not, a stable source of oil is key to our 
economic viability for the foreseeable future.
  Fact No. 2: Absent new discoveries, the major source for new energy 
imports will be the Persian Gulf, the location of a majority of the 
world's known reserves. We are already dependent for about 25 percent 
of our total oil use on the Persian Gulf, and that number will only 
increase. This Nation today is importing 57 percent of the crude oil we 
consume, with half of that coming from the Persian Gulf.
  Fact No. 3: Our relationship with the Persian Gulf countries is 
uneasy, to say the least. Of the major oil-producing countries in the 
Persian Gulf, we apply some form of economic sanction to all of them. 
Think of that. We have economic sanctions on virtually all of those 
countries in the Persian Gulf from which we import oil. We have a 
moratorium on imports from Iran. We import, as I indicated, somewhere 
between 700,000 and a million barrels a day from Iraq, which we have 
been bombing for 10 years. Our relations with the remainder are 
complicated by a number of factors, not the least of which is our 
alliance with Israel, a country which is the sworn enemy of most of 
those nations in the Mideast.
  Fact No. 4: The stability of the Persian Gulf is in grave doubt. We 
have spent billions to have troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to contain 
Iraq in the name of the Persian Gulf Stability Accord. Radical Islamic 
movements are a serious political force in many other countries. Even 
Saudi Arabia, our traditional bulwark of stability in the region, is 
now a cause for grave concern.
  Mr. Hersh's article, written after extensive consultations with the 
National Security Agency and others, paints a grave picture of Saudi 
Arabia's political future, the corruption of the country's regime, its 
alienation from the country's religious rank and file, and its 
vulnerability to Islamic fundamentalism.
  Detailed in the article is an eerie reminder of the situation in Iran 
in the late 1970s under the Shah. Iran was, of course, at that time the 
United States' stable anchor in the gulf. We all remember too clearly 
what happened in Iran.
  Mr. Hersh also points out the level of complicity between those we 
rely on for energy in Saudi Arabia and those who seek to attack the 
United States and our citizens.
  Saudi Arabia is the largest single source of funding for radical 
fundamentalism and its organs of terror. The Taliban would not exist 
but for Saudi Arabian money. That has been identified. Al-Qaida and 
Osama bin Laden would not exist but for Saudi money. I need not remind 
you that Saudi money would not exist at all but for oil. It all comes 
back to oil.
  On October 22, the two largest newspapers in New York and Washington, 
DC--the sites of the attacks on September 11--issued editorial opinions 
urging that we resist linkage between the events of the 11th and energy 
policy--totally in contrast to the position,

[[Page 21199]]

I might add, of organized labor and veterans in this country.
  Let me confront those opinions with another set of basic facts about 
the September 11 attacks. Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamic 
groups have three major issues with our Nation. First, the United 
States alliance with Israel--our traditional alliance with Israel is 
being put to the test by energy dependence in the gulf. The Bush 
administration, which has been as good or a better friend to Israel 
than any other administration in recent memory, is now somewhat at odds 
with Israel in an attempt to appeal to more moderate elements in the 
Gulf. What is this all about? It is about oil.
  Secondly, bin Laden wants United States troops out of Saudi Arabia. 
Why are we there? To prevent Iraq from threatening the stability of the 
gulf. The issue is oil.
  Thirdly, bin Laden believes that the value of Persian Gulf oil should 
be seven times its current price--that is, $144 a barrel. He has 
written in his extensive writings that he wants to seize control of 
what he calls the ``Islamic wealth'' in order to end what he calls the 
``greatest theft in human history''--the U.S. purchase of cheap oil.''
  It is all about oil, oil, oil. To suggest there is no linkage between 
energy policies and the events of September 11, in my opinion, is 
ludicrous. It doesn't take Cassandra to see where our energy future is 
headed. It will, however, require action by this Senate in order to 
reverse our present course. The House has done its job. The President 
has asked the Senate to act. I urge my colleagues to pass energy 
legislation as soon as possible.
  I think we have continually communicated, as a minority, with the 
Democratic leadership urging the scheduling of an energy bill that we 
can take up and debate prior to going out on recess. There seems to be 
a reluctance in the Democratic leadership. There is an energy task 
force report in the energy bill that we have outlined. It is very 
unrealistic, in my opinion, to address the arguments, one of which, of 
course, continues to be the issue of ANWR.
  One of the fascinating things about the contribution of oil that 
comes down the west coast to the States of Washington, California, and 
ultimately Oregon--although Oregon does not have a refinery--is the 
reality that nearly two-thirds of that oil comes from Alaska. If Alaska 
doesn't replace that oil, that oil is going to come into these States, 
and it is going to come from the Mideast, come in foreign tankers that 
are built in U.S. shipyards, with U.S. crews.
  The States of Washington, Oregon, and California should recognize 
their secure supply from Alaska is much more valuable than the unknown 
risks associated with bringing oil in from the Mideast.
  As Congress looks at the current exposure to terrorism, where a 
terrorist act in Saudi Arabia can overthrow the royal family in Saudi 
Arabia, or there could be a terrorist attack on ships going through the 
Straits of Hormuz--all of that leads to the question: Should we have an 
energy bill that balances conservation and production?
  I will close with the argument relative to those who seem to have a 
little difficulty with the issue of opening up the Coastal Plain. I 
will give some idea of the vastness of the area.
  Many people in this body have not chosen to take advantage of 
opportunities to visit the area for themselves. ANWR happens to be 
about the size of the State of South Carolina. It is about 19 million 
acres. The House bill allows 2,000 acres to be utilized for development 
and exploration; 2,000 acres is not much bigger than a small farm, if 
one can somehow recognize we are talking about 2,000 acres out of 19 
million acres.
  What is the rest of ANWR? Madam President, 8.5 million acres have 
been put in wilderness in perpetuity, 9 million acres in refuge, and 
there is only 1.5 million acres left that only Congress has the 
authority to open.
  In the House bill, only 2,000 acres can have the footprint of 
development only. Is that responsible? We think it is. Can it be opened 
safely? We have had 30 years experience in Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay has 
developed 13 billion barrels of oil. It was only supposed to develop 10 
billion barrels of oil. It has provided the Nation with 25 percent of 
its total crude oil supply for the last 27 years.
  People say ANWR contains a 6-month supply. That is assuming there is 
no other oil produced in this country and no other oil imported. If, 
indeed, ANWR is in the range of estimates of 5.6 billion to 16 billion 
barrels, it would replace what we would import from Saudi Arabia in 30 
years or Iraq in 50 years. It would be very substantial.
  The merits of whether we can do this safely, the merits of the 
arguments of some of America's extreme environmental communities that 
have used this issue, very frankly, as a cash cow--and they have milked 
it for all they can and will continue to do so until we eventually 
authorize the opening of it and they can move on to something else--
because this issue is so far away, the American people cannot see the 
reality of ANWR for themselves. That, indeed, we have the technology to 
open the area safely.
  Recognize the experience we have had in the Arctic over the last 30 
years. We built ice roads. We do not develop when the migratory path of 
the caribou are involved. The potential of the area is very large. If 
there isn't the oil we expect there to be, we can make a park out of 
it.
  For us not to have knowledge of what is in there at a time when we 
are increasing our dependence on the Mideast is unconscionable to me.
  There are other issues that enter into this, such as our relationship 
with Canada. Canada considers us a competitor, and there is nothing 
wrong with competition. Nevertheless, their view of the world is we 
should not develop any more resources out of Alaska because it competes 
with theirs in the Canadian Arctic. I can understand that.
  As to the growth of the caribou herds in the Prudhoe Bay field, there 
were 3,000 to 4,000 animals, and now they have close to 26,000 animals 
in the Prudhoe Bay area. You cannot shoot them.
  The Washington Post ran articles depicting polar bears. It is 
interesting because the pictures--and this is yesterday's Washington 
Post article--shows a couple of polar bears. When one reads this, one 
assumes this is in the 1002 area. This is a little east of Barrow. It 
is not in the 1002 area. We have certification from the photographer 
who took these pictures that it is not in the 1002 area. But it is a 
warm, cuddly issue, and people look at polar bears.
  The article does not tell you that these polar bears are protected. 
They are marine mammals. If one wants to take a trophy polar bear, one 
can go to Canada and shoot it, or one can go to Russia and shoot it, 
but one cannot in the United States, in Alaska, shoot a polar bear.
  I do not know a better way to protect the polar bear than protecting 
them from traditional trophy hunting. We have taken steps to try and be 
responsible relative to development in this fragile area. We have the 
technology to do it right.
  Some people say: That is academic, Senator Murkowski, because we are 
looking at 7 to 10 years before development is complete. If we built 
the Pentagon in 18 months and the Empire State Building in a little 
over a year, and this body expedited the permitting process--we already 
have a pipeline halfway from the trans-Alaska 800-mile pipeline over to 
the 1002 area. It ends in a field called Badami. We only have another 
40 to 50 miles to go. We can have oil flowing in 18 months. There is 
absolutely no question about it.
  The arguments being used are the same arguments that were used in the 
late sixties opposing the opening of Prudhoe Bay. They are exactly the 
same. Only then they said: You are going to run an 800-mile pipeline 
from the Arctic to southern ports of Alaska, and it is going to be like 
a fence. The caribou and moose are not going to be able to cross, it is 
going to break and notwithstanding earthquakes. It is one of the 
engineering wonders of the world, and it has provided jobs in this 
country.
  I am going to finish with one point, and that is the stimulus. We are 
talking about a stimulus in this Nation.

[[Page 21200]]

What does a stimulus mean? It means different things to different 
people. To some it means jobs; to others it means tax relief. I defy 
any Member of this body to tell me a stimulus that is more meaningful 
than authorizing the opening of ANWR because what it would do is it 
would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs. Not government jobs, 
private sector jobs in shipbuilding, in developing pipes and valves. It 
would start immediately. This would come from the private sector in 
exploration, and those ships would be U.S. ships built in U.S. yards.
  What else would it do, Madam President? It would result in the 
Federal Government getting probably $1.6 billion in revenue immediately 
in lease sales because it is Federal land. The Federal Government puts 
it up for lease, competitive bids. The estimate of the Federal share is 
roughly in that area. That is a pretty good return to the Federal 
Government to start out.
  The last thing, as we look at this stimulus package, you are not 
going to find anything in it except potentially ANWR which is not going 
to cost the Federal Government one red cent. I challenge my colleagues 
to find another project which would provide such a major economic 
stimulus without costing the taxpayers money, and indeed bringing 
significant revenue into the treasury.
  I rest my case. I thank the Chair for her attention and wish her and 
all a happy Halloween.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, will the Senator from Alaska yield for 
a question? I want to get this straight. Right now when we buy oil from 
foreign countries, the royalties, the labor, the pipes, and all the 
construction and drilling, all the economic investment is in those 
foreign countries; is that correct?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely.
  Mr. SESSIONS. But if we were to open ANWR, the Federal Government, 
just from the sale of the leases, would receive $1.6 billion?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is estimated the lease sale would bring the Federal 
Government about $1.6 billion in revenue. It may be more. Nobody knows 
because industry would competitively bid it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Would there be royalties paid each year after that 
during production?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If there is production, the Federal Government would 
receive additional royalties?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Would the State of Alaska benefit from that?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, obviously. I also want to point out that a 
sizable percentage of our deficit balance of payments, as the Senator 
knows, is the cost of imported oil.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And the workers even in Alaska are supposed to pay 
Federal income tax.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. They do pay Federal income tax. They are all American 
citizens, and they are subject to the same laws as the Senator from 
Alabama and I.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Instead of having workers in Saudi Arabia paying taxes 
to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran, they would be paying taxes to the U.S. 
Government.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely. This would be all U.S. labor. There would 
be a prohibition on any of the oil that comes from ANWR being exported 
out of the United States.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I know there are people who have become emotionally 
committed to this ANWR issue. I hope people will rethink it. As the 
Senator from Alaska has explained repeatedly, we have such a small area 
that needs to be produced, and wells are so much more sophisticated 
today. One well can drain a much larger area than ever before. There is 
a virtual pipeline there. That is important. The Senator mentioned a 
threat from foreign dependence.
  Was it not just a few years ago the price of oil per barrel on the 
world market was around $13 and the cartel, since they had so much of 
the oil, fixed the price and drove it up to as high as $30 a barrel?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It was a little over $30. As a matter of fact, they 
basically came together and set a floor and a ceiling. The floor was 
$22 and the ceiling was $25. If it goes up above that, that is fine for 
awhile. Then they increase production and bring it down.
  Of course, what has happened with this terrorist activity is less jet 
fuel is used, less automobile gasoline. So we temporarily have a 
surplus and we are seeing that, but now OPEC is reducing their supply.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I guess the point is, these are supposedly our friends 
who triple the price we have to pay for oil. We have to pay three times 
as much money to foreign sources, and we get no more oil than we did 
the day before they drove it up?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is true.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If they can do that, if they are friends, if we were to 
have some turnover in government or a war were to break out that could 
deny some of this, we could see prices even higher than that on the 
world market?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely. There is one other point that is obvious 
to the Senator and to me, but it is overlooked by some, and that is we 
have other sources of energy. We have natural gas. We have coal. We 
have biomass. We have wind power, solar power. But because of our 
technology, America and the world moves on oil. It is put in airplanes. 
It is put in boats. It is put in trains, automobiles. For the 
foreseeable future, we are evidently unlikely to find any significant 
replacement for oil. So that is why we have become so dependent and our 
vulnerability, to the extent of our national security, is at risk, as 
our veterans are pointing out.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Of course, the Senator is not overlooking conservation. 
That is another way to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Absolutely.
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is a big part of this bill that the Senator 
proposed.
  I again want to express my appreciation to the Senator. I came to the 
Senate 5 years ago and heard the Senator delineate this problem and 
tell us over and over again what we were going to be facing in the 
future. I think the events in recent weeks have validated the Senator's 
warnings, the Senator's caution to America, the Senator's call for us 
to do the smart thing.
  I also believe if we can produce more oil at home, it would reduce 
our deficit and help this economy recovery.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. As the Senate knows, symbolism is so significant. If 
we were to make a decision to allow the opening of this particular 
area, we would send a signal to OPEC that we mean business, that we are 
serious about reducing our dependence. We are not going to replace 
dependence, but we can reduce it dramatically by a conscientious effort 
to keep these jobs at home, and, as we both know, the economic forecast 
suggests there could be significant growing concern over loss of jobs 
and this is the most significant single identifiable project to create 
jobs that anybody has been able to pinpoint that does not cost the 
Government any money or the taxpayer.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will ask one more question. The Senator has 
challenged us now to name one more project anywhere in this country 
that will produce as much stimulus as increasing our domestic oil 
supply as this bill will do, and I think it is a challenge that ought 
to stay out there and we ought to see if somebody can meet it. Not only 
will it help us, it will actually produce income and not cost us any 
money.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I certainly would challenge any Member to come up with 
a stimulus that would provide jobs, not cost the American taxpayer 
anything, and indeed bring revenue into the coffers. I thank my good 
friend and wish him a good day.

                          ____________________