[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22986-22987]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            ENERGY SECURITY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to address some comments made by 
the majority leader this morning. Comments made by the majority leader 
this morning indicated he was postponing consideration of energy 
legislation until next year. I do not believe this is being responsive 
to the security needs of this Nation. As we know, the House has passed 
comprehensive energy legislation. It has now been almost 6 months since 
the administration transmitted its report and recommendations on 
national energy policy to the Congress.


  I do not think there is any question that had it not been for that 
the change of leadership in the Senate, we would have had energy 
legislation completed before the August recess.
  When we left for the Thanksgiving recess, we assumed we would return 
to consider the stimulus legislation, followed by appropriations bills 
and items related to terrorism. The majority leader has stated that the 
energy legislation would come to the floor as soon as issues relating 
to the terrorist attacks of September 11 were addressed. Now we seem to 
have a change, again. The majority leader has announced we will turn to 
the railroad retirement bill and the farm bill this week before we 
return to energy.
  I ask my colleagues: Is railroad retirement more important to our 
Nation's security than protecting our Nation's energy supply? Is the 
farm bill more important to protecting our Nation's security? This is 
like Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown. It seems the 
majority leader can always find something else to do rather than 
address the critical energy needs of this Nation and the energy 
security threat.
  We see new threats appearing. I find this terribly disturbing, 
especially in light of two recent events that could jeopardize our 
national security. First was the announcement yesterday by the Attorney 
General that there was reason to believe that threats exist against our 
Nation's natural gas supplies should bin Laden be captured or killed. 
Second is the strong statement by the administration against Saddam 
Hussein and Iraq about their continuing efforts to develop weapons of 
mass destruction.
  I need not remind this body, as I have often said, that we import a 
significant amount of oil from Saddam Hussein--more than 1 million 
barrels per day in September alone. Just last week two Navy sailors 
were killed defending against Iraq's illegally smuggling oil.
  I am going to quote from an article that appeared in an Alaska paper 
and is entitled ``Iraqi oil: 2 sailors die'':

       For reasons mysterious to us, a few Alaskans become 
     irrational when it is suggested that oil from ANWR would be 
     preferable to oil imported by the U.S. from Iraq. Anything, 
     it seems, is better than opening the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge.
       Well, maybe not anything. Everyone surely must be heartsick 
     over the loss of two American Navy men a few days ago when a 
     rusty tanker smuggling 12,000 barrels of Iraqi oil sank in 
     the North Arabian Gulf.
       The two sailors from the USS Peterson boarded the 
     overloaded rust-bucket as part of the U.S. effort to prevent 
     Iraq from illegally diverting oil to shady foreign buyers, 
     who resell it on the spot market--with much of it winding up 
     in American refineries.
       When the tanker, the Samra, went down, it took with it four 
     Iraqi crewmen and the American sailors. The oil was in tanks 
     hidden under bags of grain in the hold.

[[Page 22987]]

       At the risk of further angering opponents of opening ANWR, 
     we point out that Petty Officer 1st Class Vincent Parker, 38, 
     of Preston, Miss., and Petty Officer 3rd Class Benjamin 
     Johnson, 21, of Rochester, N.Y., died because our own 
     domestic oil resources are not sufficiently developed.

  It seems we have a grave inconsistency. On one hand, we are importing 
oil from Iraq; on the other, enforcing a no-fly zone. And now we have 
had the loss of two Navy sailors defending against Iraq's illegal oil.
  Should an attack on our natural gas supplies occur or should there be 
some disruption in our supply of imported energy, we will see energy 
prices skyrocket and risk seeing our recession quickly turn into a 
depression.
  Should this occur, I hope the American people will understand the 
majority leader's position that they will just have to wait until next 
year for some relief on energy legislation.
  I was also quite surprised to hear the majority leader state that all 
committees of jurisdiction have had the opportunity for input on the 
legislation he will introduce when, in fact, just the opposite is true.
  In order to frustrate the will of Senators, the majority leader had 
to resort to the extraordinary measure of closing one of the standing 
committees of the Senate, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, so that it would not report partisan energy legislation.
  Despite the requirements of both the Senate and committee rules that 
we hold business meetings at least monthly, we have been forbidden to 
meet and, in fact, have not had a business meeting since the August 
recess. I ask: Is this allowing the Senate to work its will?
  Now that the majority leader has postponed consideration of 
comprehensive energy legislation, will he allow the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee to consider this legislation? That appears pretty 
evident.
  I respectfully suggest the majority leader lift his prohibition on 
our committee so we can hold a business meeting to immediately consider 
this legislation. I do not think it will take the committee more than 
one business meeting to report an amendment or amendments to the 
Senate. If the majority leader introduces his version this week and 
allows the Energy Committee to meet next week, I am confident we will 
be able to report bipartisan legislation in time for consideration by 
the full Senate.
  Should this not occur, I believe it to be my obligation as ranking 
member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to bring the 
debate about our Nation's energy security to the floor of the Senate as 
soon as possible, using whatever procedural means are available. I 
alert all my colleagues that it is my intent to use whatever means are 
necessary to get an energy bill before this Senate before we recess.
  I further remind my colleagues, as we look at a stimulus package, 
there is no better stimulus than the ANWR issue in the energy bill. 
Where else are you going to generate about 250,000 jobs in this 
country? Where else are you going to generate about $3 billion in 
revenue from lease sales? And where else are you going to do this 
without the cost to the taxpayers of any amount of money?
  This is a money generator. It is a jobs issue. The Senate should move 
on this issue expeditiously.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, what is the matter before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to H.R. 10 is the 
pending question.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________