[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22027-22029]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not think there is any question 
about the condition of this country. We are clearly a nation at war. As 
we look at the instability, the uncertainty of regions of the world, 
regions where many of the nations that want to destroy Israel and the 
U.S. reside, the reality is these particular areas of the world are 
ones on which we are growing more dependent all the time.
  It is no secret to the occupant of the chair that we are now 57 
percent dependent on imported oil. However, during the 1970s, we were 
about 34 percent dependent on oil. Some remember the inconvenience of 
the gas lines around the block. This was at a time of conflict in the 
Mideast, the Yom Kippur War. Americans were outraged. They were 
indignant. How could it possibly happen in our Nation that we should be 
so inconvenienced?
  So there we were, in the 1970s, 33 percent dependent; today we 57 
percent dependent, and the Department of Energy indicates by the year 
2010 we are going to be somewhere in the area of 66 percent dependent.
  We are, in my opinion, held hostage by the same interests that seek 
to destroy and uproot Israel. Through our energy policies of 
dependence, we have tipped the scales and given tremendous power to 
extremists in the Mideast. We are only making Iran, Iraq, and Libya, 
perhaps, stronger. Is that our wish?
  What happens if the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fails? There is almost a 
parallel occurring in that country between what happened in Iran 30 
years ago with the fall of the Shah. When it occurred, the Shah was one 
of America's greatest allies. What happened was his regime came down as 
a consequence of corruption, a concentration of too much wealth in too 
few hands. That situation is very much evident in Saudi Arabia today.
  I might add, if we look to bin Laden followers, a number of them have 
come from Saudi Arabia. As we examine the background of those 
responsible for the aircraft that went into the Pentagon and the Trade 
Centers, we find they have connections. Some are actually from Saudi 
Arabia.
  Now, I am not condemning Saudi Arabia by any means. I am simply 
drawing a comparison. As our dependence on imported oil increases, we 
focus more on Saudi Arabia because that is where the significant supply 
of petroleum in the world exists. We are becoming more vulnerable as 
their regime becomes more unstable.
  Furthermore, we are importing a million barrels of oil a day from 
Iraq. Now, what is the uniqueness of Iraq? We happen to enforce a no-
fly zone over Iraq. We are putting our men's and women's lives at stake 
to ensure that Iraq stays within the constraints of the U.N. sanctions. 
Yet we know they have moved beyond those constraints, that they are 
selling oil outside the U.N. oversight, illegally in that sense.
  So here we are, we are taking their oil and we are enforcing a no-fly 
zone over Iraq. We put the oil in our aircraft and then we go and 
enforce that no-fly zone by taking out some of their targets. We almost 
had one of our intercepter aircraft shot down a few weeks ago. What 
does Saddam Hussein do with the money? He pays his Republican Guards to 
keep him alive and develops missile capability with biological warheads 
aimed at our ally, Israel.
  Is this part of our foreign policy or is it because we have no other 
choice than to depend on Iraq for a certain amount of our imported oil? 
I am not suggesting we might funnel some of the money for terrorist 
attacks to keep Saddam Hussein in charge, but one has to wonder what 
his future holds. We must address this dependence with a new sense of 
urgency, a new sense of purpose. To ensure our energy security, we must 
put in place solutions that begin and end at home. In my opinion, the 
sooner the better.
  There are tremendous resources and ingenuity in this country. Our 
balanced, bipartisan energy plan puts them to work. It adjusts fuel 
economy standards; encourages conservation, provides incentives for the 
development of advanced newer, cleaner alternative fuels, and 
encourages the use of our own energy supplies.
  I know the occupant of the chair would be disappointed if I didn't 
bring up the issue of ANWR and what kind of a contribution this can 
make. Clearly, we can open this area safely, effectively, and quickly. 
What does it hold? Somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels--enough 
oil to replace what we would import from Saudi Arabia in a 30-year 
period of time. All the economic benefits are there. When I say 
``employment,'' perhaps 200,000 jobs.
  There is the potential of revenue to the Federal Government from 
lease sales amounting to about $2.6 billion. This is a stimulus. It 
would not cost the Federal Government one red cent.
  Our President has said energy is one of our two key components to a 
strong stimulus package necessary to get this economy growing again, 
somewhat like the old Lee Iacocca ad. If you can find a better economic 
stimulus that adds jobs to our economy, billions to our gross national 
product, and will not cost the taxpayer one red cent, go buy it.
  The problem is reluctance in this body. The House has done its job 
and passed H.R. 4. The Democratic leader has not seen fit to bring this 
bill or schedule this bill before this body. Apparently, there is no 
indication from him as to his intentions. It appears he shut the door 
on the Energy Committee actions. I happen to be ranking member. We have 
not had markup on

[[Page 22028]]

any bill or any action, with the exception of reporting out a 
nomination or two, for well over a month. The Democratic leader has 
basically shut down the Energy Committee and the process associated 
with the authorization which is the duty of the authorizing committees.
  Evidently, the writing of the bill is underway, independently, with 
very little input, if any, from the other side. Republican interests 
will not be heard. We cannot share with our Democratic colleagues our 
input.
  The President has said the Senate must act. As I indicated, the House 
has done its job. It is certainly not in the national interest to treat 
this issue for what it is, a critical component of national security. 
Our Achilles' heel in this war is our dependence on foreign oil. Bin 
Laden knows it; Saddam Hussein knows it. But the United States does not 
seem to know it is, to our immense discredit. How could we not know? 
Didn't we recognize on September 11 the significance that much of the 
terrorist activity is funded by oil? If we do not recognize it soon, 
God help us.
  In my few remaining minutes I want to enlighten my colleagues on the 
significance of what has occurred over an extended period of time 
relative to public opinion on this matter. We have heard from our 
President on four occasions, specifically saying this country must have 
an energy plan that encourages conservation and encourages exploration.
  He says: I want the Congress to know there is more to helping our 
economy grow than tax relief. One of the major components is an energy 
plan.
  He goes on to say on another occasion when the bill has passed the 
House of Representatives: They have done their job. He wants the Senate 
to do its job.
  On October 17, he asked Congress to act on an energy bill the House 
of Representatives passed in August. On October 14, there are two other 
aspects to a good, strong stimulus package. One is an energy bill. 
October 31, our Nation needs an energy plan.
  I don't know who is listening around here. I am certainly listening. 
It is unfortunate that the Democratic leader evidently is not listening 
to the President. I don't understand this political momentum. Why can't 
we do as the House and have an open discussion on the merits of this 
energy bill as proposed? Where is the energy bill? We introduced a bill 
in February, about 304 pages. The only thing on which anybody seemed to 
want to focus was the two or three pages of ANWR, opening up this area.
  This has become a cash cow for the extreme environmental community. 
Make no mistake; they are milking it for all it is worth. It is an 
issue that is thousands of miles away from the American people. It is 
an issue filled with emotion. They say the polar bear is endangered, 
but they will not say you cannot take the polar bear--they are marine 
mammals--from the United States, and that includes from my State of 
Alaska. They are protected. You can go to Canada and take them for 
trophies, or go to Russia, but you cannot in the United States.
  They say somehow the Gwich' in people, in their dependence on the 
caribou, are somehow in jeopardy. I will read for the Record from the 
Patroleum News: ``Gwich' in, Ensign link up in new McKenzie Delta 
Drilling Company,'' September 30:

       A new Native-controlled oil and gas drilling company has 
     been formed to provide oilfield services in a land claims 
     area of the Mackenzie Delta that is is seen as a likely route 
     for any Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
       Gwich'in Oilfield Services, 51 percent owned by Gwich'in 
     Development Corp. of Inuvik, Northwest Territories, and 49 
     percent by Calgary-based Ensign Drilling, is expecting to 
     start operations this winter.
       The Gwich'in settlement area covers 22,242 square miles and 
     is governed by the Gwich'in Tribal Council.
       Gwich'in Development Corp., wholly owned by the tribal 
     council, has a mission to build an investment portfolio that 
     offers business opportunities, employment and training to 
     Gwich'in residents.
       Tom Connors, chief executive officer of the corporation, 
     said Sept. 10 that the deal with Ensign gives the community a 
     chance to participate in the development of oil and gas 
     resources.
       Ensign president Selby Porter said his company's experience 
     and equipment make it the right choice to work with the 
     Gwich'in people.
       The development of a local work force and infrastructure is 
     key to the continued development of oil and gas resources of 
     the Arctic region of Canada,'' he said.
       Formation of the new company was announced Sept. 6.

  About 80 percent of the Gwich'in people live in Canada. Why is it OK 
for the Gwich'in people in Canada to go ahead and develop their land 
and somehow the Gwich'ins who live in Alaska and are funded by the 
Sierra Club and various other environmental groups in opposition are 
opposed? Obviously, there is some skulduggery associated with this.
  The other issue is relative to the base of support. We have seen the 
President's statements in favor of opening ANWR. Secretary of Interior 
Gale Norton, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Labor 
Chao, and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Principi have all spoken at 
more than one event. Yet we have had press conferences with the 
American Legion, all the veterans organizations, including the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars. The AMVETS, Catholic War Veterans, and Vietnam 
veterans have all spoken in favor. It is interesting to hear their 
point of view. It is enlightening. They say they have fought wars on 
foreign soil. They have fought wars over oil in the Persian Gulf 
conflict where, obviously, we stopped Saddam Hussein from going into 
Kuwait, and his objective was to go into Saudi Arabia and take over the 
oil.
  I am reminded of remarks made in this Chamber by Senator Mark 
Hatfield from Oregon. He indicated on more than one occasion he would 
vote for opening up ANWR any day rather than send other American men 
and women over on foreign soil to fight a war over oil.
  This is the theme of America's veterans. They say the national 
security of this Nation is at risk because of our increased dependence 
on oil. What can we do about it? What we can do about it is increase 
domestic production. We are not going to relieve our dependence 
totally, but we will reduce it substantially.
  The intent of the Senate, if it votes to authorize the opening of 
this area, is to send a message to the Mideast that we mean business 
about reducing our dependence. You are going to see a change in the 
OPEC structure, where they are going to be more sensitive to the 
significance of what the United States states when we say we are going 
to reduce our dependence on imports.
  I suggest they are going to increase production. When they increase 
production, what does that mean? It means the price goes down. We know, 
as a consequence of terrorist activities, people are not flying, we do 
not have the same utilization of gasoline, and we have a temporary 
decline in price. But that is only temporary because what we saw OPEC 
do the other day was cut production another 1.5 million barrels. They 
know we are addicted to their oil. As a consequence, they are playing 
it for all it is worth.
  As to organized labor, we have the Teamsters, maritime unions, 
seafarers unions, operating engineers, plumbers, pipefitters, 
carpenters and joiners--I could go on with this list--because this is a 
jobs issue.
  Mr. President, as you know very well, we have a very soft economy. We 
are in a recession. This is a jobs issue--several hundred thousand jobs 
in every State.
  What are we going to do? We are going to build more ships. We will 
build them in U.S. yards because those ships that move Alaskan oil, 
under law, have to be U.S. flagged vessels, built in U.S. yards with 
U.S. crews. This is shipbuilding, gulf shipbuilding and west coast. It 
is a big jobs issue.
  As we debate the stimulus package, I challenge any Member of this 
body to tell me a better stimulus than opening up ANWR. Why do I say 
that? Because it is a jobs issue. It is going to create a couple of 
hundred thousand jobs. It is going to create about $2.6 billion in 
Federal lease sales when the Federal Government puts up those leases. 
Where will that go? Into the Treasury.

[[Page 22029]]

It will help offset some of the costs associated with security and 
terrorism activities. And it is not going to cost the taxpayer one red 
cent. You tell me anything else in that stimulus package that fits that 
category. There isn't any. That is why organized labor is for it.
  We have senior citizens; 60-Plus held a press conference the day 
before yesterday. The Hispanic community, the Latin-American Management 
Association and Latino coalition, the United States-Mexico Chamber of 
Commerce, they had a press conference this morning. American business 
groups: The National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, National Black Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Pan Asian Chamber of 
Commerce, the American Women's Economic Development, the Alliance For 
Energy--it goes on and on and on.
  Why is that message not coming through to this body? I can only 
assume there are several Members on the other side who do not want to 
vote on this issue. Why don't they want to vote on the issue? Perhaps 
they made commitments to extreme environmental groups. I don't know.
  In any event, we are here at a stage where we are late in the 
session. The House has taken on its responsibility totally, passing 
H.R. 4. We have implored the Democratic leader to bring this matter up, 
let us vote on it, let us debate it, and let us offer amendments. We do 
not even get an answer.
  I am putting this body on notice. If we do not get an answer from the 
Democratic leader--this is not a threat, this is a reality--we will put 
this on the stimulus bill and we will vote on it. I want everybody to 
understand there is going to be a vote on this floor, on this issue, on 
an energy bill that will contain ANWR, before we get out of here.
  Some Members have threatened a filibuster. I cannot understand--while 
it is everybody's right to do as they see fit--why anybody would 
consider filibustering an issue as important as this, in the national 
security interests of our Nation. I don't think we have ever had that, 
traditionally, in this body. We should address this issue on its 
merits, not proceed to activities associated with the threat of a 
filibuster.
  I encourage Members to reflect a little bit about just what the folks 
back home will read into that kind of a vote. They will read the 
filibuster has been on a procedural motion, not on the merits of the 
issue. They will read it is in defiance of the veterans who have spoken 
time and time again, in defiance of the position of organized labor, in 
defiance of the position of our President.
  I don't know whether there is an effort to ensure the President does 
not win on this issue. Is that what we are talking about? I hope that 
is not the case.
  But to have this matter ignored, to have this matter taken away from 
the committee of jurisdiction by the Democratic leader at least 
warrants an explanation, and we cannot seem to get an explanation. The 
Democratic leader is a good friend of mine. We have had some 
conversations. He has been very responsive to hearing me out. But now 
it is time we had an opportunity to hear him out because he has simply 
ignored this. I want to tell the Democratic leader the pressure is 
going to become more intense. There is no reason this issue should not 
be addressed in an expeditious manner.
  I noted in the Boston Herald an article. I ask unanimous consent it 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Boston Herald, Nov. 6, 2001]

                        Energy a Security Issue

       President Bush urged Congress to get an energy bill on his 
     desk before it adjourns for the year, making the case that a 
     sound energy policy is vital to national security.
       Speaking to business leaders recently, the president 
     observed, ``It's in our national interest that we develop 
     more energy supplies at home.'' And Interior Secretary Gale 
     Norton added, ``Every day the United States imports 700,000 
     barrels of oil from Saddam Hussein.''
       The House has passed an energy bill which would allow 
     drilling in portions of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge. But Senate Democrats have promised the environmental 
     lobby that they will block ANWR development, and 
     Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry has threatened to lead a 
     filibuster.
       That made little sense before Sept. 11, and even less since 
     then. In the past 30 years, America has become dangerously 
     dependent on foreign oil. It's estimated ANWR contains 
     between 5.7 billion and 16 billion barrels of oil. Roughly 11 
     billion barrels would be the equivalent of 20 years of 
     imports from Saudi Arabia. And only a miniscule part of 
     ANWR's 19 million acres would be used.
       America will never again be energy self-sufficient. But 
     every barrel this nation doesn't have to import from the 
     Middle East enhances national security. Planes and tanks 
     don't run on recycled environmentalist cliches.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The article it supports the opening of ANWR and 
suggests if there wasn't a reason before September 11, there is 
certainly an even better reason afterward. It mentioned Senator Kerry, 
who is opposed to this legislation. It indicates in general terms it 
should be supported because it is in the national interests of the 
country.
  Lest there be any mistaken innuendoes, saying we don't need, really, 
to open up the ANWR area because there are other areas, that we can 
look to our friends in Canada--let's just reflect on what Prime 
Minister Jean Chretien said on November 6. He took a swing at the 
United States in an interesting way, over soft wood policies. He told 
the House of Commons:

       If the Americans want free trade in oil and natural gas, 
     they should also have free trade in lumber.

  He further says:

       If they were not to have oil and gas from Canada, then they 
     will need wood to heat their homes.

  This is the Prime Minister saying, in effect, don't just rely on an 
unlimited supply of resources from Canada, there has to be two-way 
trade.
  I will close by outlining the significance of the economic stimulus 
associated with this single issue. The Department of Labor 
Massachusetts Survey indicates jobs, direct, 250,000; the Wharton 
Econometrics Institute at the University of Pennsylvania lists the 
total employment, indirect, at 735,000 jobs associated with the 
development of ANWR; jobs in 50 States, 80,000 in California, 48,000 in 
New York.
  We do not make valves. We do not make pipe or welding rod. These 
things are all going to be made in the United States. Labor is going to 
come up. We are looking at 200,000 jobs at a minimum, direct.
  Federal benefits of opening up ANWR will add up to $3.2 billion. That 
is another estimate, in lease sales to the Federal Treasury, and if the 
oil is produced we are talking about billions more in royalties. It is 
estimated that ANWR oil has a potential value upwards of $300 billion. 
That is from the Energy Information Administration. That is $300 
billion we do not have to spend overseas. That is $300 billion that 
will travel through the economy, being taxed here in America. As I 
indicated, the Jones Act mandates the oil move in U.S.-flag vessels.
  Nineteen new supertankers will be needed at a cost of about $200 
million. What will that do for American shipbuilding? Construction 
alone will generate 5,000 new jobs in American shipbuilding during the 
next 10 to 15 years.
  Finally, each day we write a $12 million check to the Iraqi 
Government for their oil. That is more than $4.4 billion a year. I 
think it is time to put that money in our backyard instead of in the 
backyard and into pocket indirectly of Bin Laden.
  I thank the Chair for his attention.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________