[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23514-23519]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            ENERGY SECURITY

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I know the Senator from Kansas is on 
the floor to speak on several important issues, and the Senator from 
Alaska will be addressing the Senate later this evening on the 
important issue of energy security for our Nation. I agree with so many 
of the points of the Senator from Alaska, as well as the Senator from 
Mississippi, who has been taking with us this evening on that subject.
  I want to talk about a subject that is actually somewhat related. The 
subject I want to spend a few minutes on tonight is most certainly 
related to the issue of energy security for our Nation. It is related 
to the situation that we find ourselves in, combating this new war 
against terrorism in many different ways and in ways very different 
than our past conflicts would have us be engaged. Let me just try to 
bring this into focus.
  We have troops in Afghanistan and, luckily and thankfully, and 
because we have the best equipped, best led, and bravest and most 
courageous fighting force in the world, we are making extraordinary 
progress on our front in Afghanistan. You can see the headlines in all 
of the newspapers that would attest to the great effort that is being 
made. But we all know, and we are all learning quickly, that this war 
on terrorism is something we are going to have to fight on many 
different fronts. One of those fronts is in our own homeland.
  We hated to see what happened on September 11, and we were all heart 
broken and angry and justifiably angry at the devastation and the 
horrific attack on our Nation.
  As I was saying, we now have to fight this war on many different 
fronts, not just the front in Afghanistan but the front here at home. 
We were all terribly horrified and righteously angry. We have to turn 
that righteous anger into concrete steps to protect ourselves in the 
future. Many of us in our various capacities and many different 
committees are about doing that. We are stepping up airport security. 
We are trying to step up the security of our cyberinfrastructure in the 
Nation. We are looking at ways to set up medical response teams on 
health care, our public health system. And all of these efforts, if we 
do them correctly and come up with good policies and funding streams, 
will most certainly help to protect our Nation against these attacks 
that, unfortunately, are going to certainly come. Even if we are 
successful--and we have been--in cornering bin Laden and taking down 
the Taliban regime and capturing or destroying that particular cell, it 
is likely, based on everything that we know--not to alarm people or 
frighten people, but we know that it is likely that there will be 
future attacks.
  The point of my short presentation today is to simply say that we are 
not sure where these attacks will be aimed. We never imagined that a 
group of people, with three of our own airplanes filled with fuel, 
would take down some of the most important buildings in this Nation. So 
we have to think: What might the next attack be? What could possibly 
come at us?
  There are so many things that could happen that we have to be smart 
and strategic about how we spend our resources.
  One of the issues that I am going to argue for a few minutes on the 
floor today is some of the critical infrastructure in our Nation--some 
of it is rail, some transportation issues, such as highways and 
tunnels, some of it is critical infrastructure protecting our nuclear 
powerplants, our electric grid, our cyberinfrastructure that we now 
rely on to run so much of our communications, transportation, health 
care systems, et cetera. We can't do all of it at once, but we can most 
certainly begin taking some steps.
  I think we need to identify where we can--whether we do it in the 
supplemental bill or in the energy bill, or whether we do it in the 
stimulus package--some projects that are worth giving some attention to 
in the event that there would be some effort to cut our resources. One 
of those resources is energy.
  Let me be very clear. In Louisiana, there are many critical highways, 
as there are in many States. There is a highway that is of critical 
importance not just to our State but to the whole Nation. It doesn't 
look like much because it is a small highway. Right now, it is a two-
lane highway. I will show you a picture of it in a moment. It is 
Louisiana 1. I think it is called LA-1. It is rightfully named because 
it is the one highway in Louisiana, and perhaps in the Nation, that we 
rely on so heavily for our oil and gas production in this Nation.



  Oil and gas production takes place, as you know, primarily off the 
southern shore of our Nation, off the coast of Texas and Mississippi 
and Louisiana and Alabama, primarily.
  We get 18 percent of our imported oil off of the loop facility, which 
is right off the coast of Louisiana and down this highway, which I am 
going to show a picture of in a minute. One can see clearly from this 
picture there are a thousand trucks a day on this highway on a regular 
day. This is not a fancy highway. It is a small highway. It runs from 
Port Fourchon all the way up to the 90 loop. There are a thousand 
trucks a day that bring pipes, supplies, men, women, equipment, and 
engineering services to produce oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico that 
help this Nation to be secure every day.
  So when people walk into this Chamber or they walk into their 
building at Cisco or IBM or eBay or whether they walk into Shaw 
Enterprises or any number of the shipbuilders in Louisiana and they 
turn the lights on, lights come on. When they fire up those plants, 
that energy runs. This energy comes, in large measure, off the coasts 
of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. This highway is the highway that 
is the bridge to Port Fourchon, where these trucks and this equipment 
are located.
  Even in a slight rain this highway goes under water. Imagine if there 
was any kind of purposeful attack on the infrastructure with some minor 
effort. This highway in the shape that it is in and the condition that 
it is in could cause a major disruption in energy flows to the United 
States.

[[Page 23515]]

  The Gulf of Mexico has 20,000 miles of the most extensive network of 
offshore oil and gas pipelines in the world. There is only 2,000 miles 
from the east coast to the west coast, approximately, as the crow 
flies, in the Nation. Ten times the amount of the length of our country 
are the miles of pipeline that come out of Louisiana to bring oil and 
gas to the rest of the Nation.
  This highway is the only way one could basically get to the point 
where this oil and gas comes off of our shore. The loop facility is the 
only offshore oil terminal in the country. There are not three. There 
are not four. There is one. It is the loop facility, and it is just a 
few miles off the shore of Louisiana. The only way to get to the loop 
facility, other than helicopter or ship, is to come down this highway 
to Port Fourchon, at the end of Louisiana, and to get to the loop 
facility, where 18 percent of our imported oil comes into the Nation. 
It comes up through the pipes and again all the supplies for the coast 
come through this highway.
  It is time that this highway be designated as a special highway for 
the Nation, a high priority corridor for this Nation. There are such 
designations in the Transportation bill for many of our highways, and I 
am sure every Senator could stand up and claim there are at least one 
or two highways in their States that are particularly important, 
whether it be for trade or for commerce. We could say that, too, about 
all of our highways, particularly for I-10, that is connecting Houston 
in the southern part of the State; I-49 that is now going to be a trade 
route hopefully to Canada and down through Louisiana; I-20 that 
connects our State, of course, east and west to other parts of the 
United States. But clearly LA-1, which is primarily responsible to help 
this Nation keep its oil and gas supply not only operating but in a 
vigorous, robust manner to supply the rest of the Nation, deserves to 
have a special designation.
  I am requesting by the amendment I am offering to the Transportation 
bill to get Louisiana-1 designated as a high-impact corridor so we can 
be in line for appropriations to change this from a two-lane highway to 
a four-lane highway to give it some of the protections a highway of 
this magnitude deserves.
  Let me show what happens when there is a turnover of an 18-wheeler, 
one of the thousands that are in this lane. The traffic is backed up 
for hours. There is no way around it. The services to the rigs out in 
the gulf are basically shut down for all practical purposes. If one 
cannot get to the port, they cannot basically get service to the rigs 
or the supplies or the pipes that are needed.
  I hesitate to actually give this speech. Frankly, I hope no terrorist 
is watching because it would be so easy in some ways to disrupt the 
supply of the oil to this Nation, but one thing September 11 has to 
teach us is putting some of our resources into building up the critical 
infrastructure in this Nation so we are not so vulnerable. I wanted to 
give this speech because I would feel terrible if something happened 
and people said: Well, Mary, you did not tell anybody about this 
highway and, after all, it is not a major interstate and we did not 
know about it.
  So I want to give my colleagues fair warning there is a little 
highway in Louisiana. It only has two lanes, but it has a thousand 
trucks a day that are bringing supplies and equipment to the offshore 
of this Nation that helps turn on lights in every schoolhouse and 
hospital and office building and run factories from Louisiana to 
Illinois and from Maine to California. If we cannot find a few million 
dollars in these trillions of dollars of budget to help us improve this 
highway so we can withstand a natural occurrence of a hurricane or a 
man-made attack that we would be better equipped to handle than what we 
have now, then I do not want to be held responsible for not bringing 
this into the light.
  I have been in this Chamber many times talking about all the critical 
infrastructure around our Nation. I have several bills and amendments 
to try to direct some of our resources to fund those projects, but this 
one comes to mind as one of the most important we should address. I 
urge my colleagues to look carefully at our needs for LA-1 to help us 
to direct through any of the bills that are moving forward. I am 
prepared to stay in this Chamber and to come back many times until we 
can get some relief to get some funding for Highway 1. I should also 
mention I-49 and I-10 which handle the bulk of our domestic production.
  Production in the United States of America is basically limited to 
this area of the country. There is virtually no production off the 
eastern shore, as the Senator from Alaska will say in his speech later 
tonight. There is virtually no production going off of the eastern 
shore. All of the offshore oil and gas production is coming off of this 
part of the gulf.
  So the infrastructure, for the Port of New Orleans, for the Port of 
Mobile, for the Port of Galveston, for the I-10 corridor that links 
basically Houston and New Orleans into Florida, is critical for the 
development and the spreading of the gas and the oil that comes off of 
the gulf to the different parts of the Nation.
  Finally, we are not complaining about producing the oil and gas. We 
recognize it brings jobs and wealth to our State. While others do not 
want production, we want production that is environmentally 
responsible. We are happy with the jobs and the wealth that it creates. 
I need to say, though, we are not creating the wealth and the jobs and 
the energy for our State. We are creating it for the entire Nation. So 
it is only right, it is only fitting, that some of the taxes that are 
paid by the oil companies from this exact production would come back to 
help us reinvest in Highway 1, in I-49, in I-10, in I-69, because it is 
those roads that support the oil and gas drilling.
  I thank my colleague from Alaska for yielding to me. He knows this 
subject in many ways even better than I know the subject. He has been 
in the Senate longer than I have, but it is so obvious to some of us 
that we have to dedicate some resources to protecting the critical 
infrastructure of this Nation. This is at least one highway that 
deserves to be No. 1, as its title would suggest.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I wish to enter a short colloquy with 
my good friend, the Senator from Louisiana, and ask her if the 
anticipated opening of ANWR would not require construction of 19 double 
hull tankers, some of which would be constructed in her State, from 
Mississippi or Alabama, costing about $4 billion? I think we have 
several of those ships underway now, creating 5,000 jobs each for 17 
years. These are figures that have been released to me by the American 
Petroleum Institute, estimating that 19 new double hull tankers of a 
millennium class will be needed if ANWR is open. The assumption is that 
ANWR will produce 10.3 billion barrels of oil. That is about what has 
come out of Prudhoe Bay, for a 60-year production life, and the new 
tankers would be needed because the old North Slope tankers are being 
phased out in their entirety by the year 2015. That is when the double 
hull requirements come into effect.
  There would be more jobs created because the Jones Act requires that 
the American oil be transported in U.S.-flagged vessels, built in U.S. 
shipyards, with U.S. crew, transported within the United States, which 
is from Alaska and the west coast, which he agreed, according to API's 
analysis, assuming ANWR passes, it will include any ban on ANWR oil 
being exported outside the United States. It also assumes that ANWR oil 
will be transported by tankers to refineries primarily in Washington, 
California, and Hawaii.
  I would like the Senator's confirmation on the estimate it would pump 
almost $4 billion into the economy, create 2000 construction jobs in 
the U.S. shipbuilding industry, some perhaps in the State of 
Washington, and approximately 3,000 other jobs. They predict this will 
compute to approximately 90,000 job years by estimating it will take 
approximately 17 years to build all the 19 ships at almost 5,000 jobs 
each year. The prediction is one ship

[[Page 23516]]

must be built each year in order to coincide with the schedule of 
retired existing tankers.
  I wish we had the capacity to build the ships in our State of Alaska, 
but that is not the case and will not be the case. However, Louisiana 
has been prominent in its shipbuilding and supply of various resources 
for Alaska's oil development.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator for that inquiry. As he knows, and 
I completely agree, more production in the continental United States 
and Alaska is definitely a step we should take to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil and to increase job opportunities here in our own 
country. Particularly at this critical time, not only is it part of our 
overall energy strategy but now it is part of our security strategy for 
homeland defense and homeland security to reduce our dependence on oil 
and gas, liquefied natural gas that may come from other sources.
  We are very proud of the shipbuilding we do in Louisiana and the 
engineering and the construction of the landforms and infrastructure 
that make it possible to drill in extraordinary conditions, in very 
deep water, leaving a minimal footprint. In days past, there were 
terrible environmental consequences to drilling. We simply did not have 
the know-how or the technology to handle some of the negative 
environmental impacts. That has changed dramatically over the last few 
years. While there is risk associated with every human activity, we 
have minimized the risk to the environment in tremendous ways.
  The Senator knows we build some tremendous ships and off- and onshore 
oil and gas equipment in Louisiana. We agree the production numbers 
need to get up.
  For the record, the Senator from Alaska should know that one-fifth of 
the entire Nation's energy supply depends on LA-1 and its connection to 
Port Fourchon. The Department of Interior mineral management identifies 
Port Fourchon as the focal point of deep water activity in the gulf. 
There is perhaps a deep water or perhaps a focal point in Alaska. I am 
not familiar with that focal point, but in Louisiana it is Port 
Fourchon. Eighty-five percent of the deepwater drilling rigs, working 
in the gulf, are supported by Port Fourchon. We have a highway that is 
not worth skating down, let alone with the 1,000 18-wheelers a day 
trying to supply the Nation with the energy it needs to operate.
  I look forward to working with the Senator as we try to improve and 
increase production. I see the Senator from Hawaii on the floor. He has 
been an outstanding spokesman of conserving where we can. It will be a 
combination of strong conservation measures and alternative energy and 
more production in Alaska and all the States, and in many places in the 
lower 48.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Senator from Louisiana. I have appreciated 
the good relationship between our two States.
  Madam President, this is a fairly significant moment from the 
standpoint of those interested in passing a comprehensive energy bill. 
We have that bill, finally, on the floor of the Senate this evening. 
Procedurally, Senator Daschle has offered a substitute amendment. 
Senator Lott offered a second-degree that adds the provisions of 
energy, as well as cloning. At 5 p.m. Monday there will be a vote on 
cloture on the Lott amendment. The significance of this is clear to 
those who said we never bring up energy for a vote, are never able to 
resolve the merits of whether or not the President's request that we 
pass a comprehensive energy policy will become a reality.
  I rise today to say that that time has come. Today it is a reality. I 
hope in the coming debate we can separate much of the fiction that has 
been associated with this issue.
  I rise today in support of the amendment to the underlying 
legislation offered by Senator Lott. Division A through G of the 
amendment will provide a balanced and comprehensive energy policy to 
guide this Nation into the future.
  Where does the American public stand? I have the results of a poll 
recently done by the IPSOS-Reid Corporation, with offices in 
Washington, New York, Toronto, Minneapolis, Vancouver, San Francisco, 
Montreal, Ottowa, Winnipeg, and Calgary. It is a public opinion poll on 
energy issues. It was not done last year; it was done in November.
  Let me share, with you the results of this poll. This independent and 
objective poll, conducted by a highly respected research firm, clearly 
shows that Americans place a high priority of passing an energy bill. 
The highlights are enlightening because 95 percent of Americans say 
Federal action on energy is important. That doesn't surprise me.
  Continuing, 72 percent of Americans say passing an energy bill is a 
higher priority than any other action Congress might take. I hope that 
message is loud and clear. Again, 72 percent say energy is a higher 
priority than any other action Congress could take. That includes 
campaign finance reform, railroad retirement, stimulus.
  Continuing, 73 percent of Americans say Congress should make the 
energy bill part of President Bush's stimulus plan. Surprisingly 
enough, 67 percent say exploration of new energy sources in the United 
States, including Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is a 
convincing reason to support passing an energy policy bill.
  We have a significant portion of America's public saying we should go 
ahead and pass an energy bill. That is what is before the Senate, H.R. 
4. That bill passed the House of Representatives. Clearly, the House 
has done its job. Now it is up to the Senate to do its job.
  We have heard from our President many times, indicating that:

       We need the energy, we need the jobs, we need a 
     comprehensive energy bill from the Senate. This plan 
     increases our energy independence and therefore our national 
     security.

  The Secretary of Energy:

       We need an energy-security policy and we need it soon.

  Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony Principi:

       We are engaged in mortal combat with an enemy who wants to 
     see us fail in securing an energy policy.

  The Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao:

       The President's plan will create literally thousands of new 
     jobs that will be needed to dramatically expand America's 
     capacity for energy production.

  Let's look at those who have gone overseas and fought wars over oil--
the American Legion:

       The development of America's domestic energy resources is 
     vital to our national security.

  That is what they wrote to Senator Daschle.
  The Veterans of Foreign Wars:

       Keeping in mind the horrific event of September 11 and 
     mindful of the threats we are facing, we strongly believe 
     that the development of America's domestic energy resources 
     is a vital national security priority.

  That is in a letter to Senator Daschle.
  The American Veterans Association:

       As you know, our current reliance on foreign oil leaves the 
     United States vulnerable to the whim of individual oil-
     exporting companies, many existing in the unpredictable and 
     highly dangerous Persian Gulf. . . . [We] firmly believe that 
     we cannot wait for the next crisis before we act.

  A letter to Senator Daschle.
  The Vietnam Veterans Institute:

       War and international terrorism have again brought into 
     sharp focus the heavy reliance of the U.S. on imported oil. 
     During these times of crises, such reliance threatens our 
     national security and economic well being. . . . It is 
     important that we develop domestic sources of oil.

  Another letter to Senator Daschle.
  The Catholic War Veterans of America participated.
  How about organized labor? This issue, our energy security, is 
expressed first by the Seafarers International Union, from Terry 
Turner, the executive director:

       At a time when the economy is faltering, working men and 
     women all over the country would clearly benefit from the 
     much-needed investment in energy development, storage, and 
     transmission.

  The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Jerry Hood:

       America has gone too long without a solid energy plan. When 
     energy costs rise, working

[[Page 23517]]

     families are the first to feel the pinch. The Senate should 
     follow the example passed by the House and ease their burden 
     by sending the President supply-based energy legislation to 
     sign.

  The Maritime Laborers Union participated in numerous press 
conferences; the Operating Engineers, Plumbers and Pipefitters Union; 
the Carpenters and Joiners Union.
  We have a significant group of America's organized labor in support 
of this because this is truly a jobs bill, much of which could be done 
without any cost to the taxpayer.
  We are talking about stimulus. Let me just indicate what opening ANWR 
would do as a stimulus to the economy. It would create about 250,000 
jobs. Those are direct jobs. The number of secondary jobs--making pipe, 
making valves--is anybody's guess. Some have come up with as high as 
700,000 jobs associated with developing it.
  What is the other stimulus? This is Federal land. As a consequence, 
the Federal Government would lease the land under a bidding process. It 
is estimated to generate about $3 billion in Federal funding coming 
into the general fund.
  If one considers the number of jobs, the revenue, and the reality 
that it will not cost the taxpayer one red cent, it is pretty hard to 
find a better stimulus. If you or anyone else in this body can identify 
a single more beneficial stimulus than opening ANWR, I would like to 
know what it is.
  The Hispanic community, the Latin American Management Association, 
has written:

       As we head into the winter season in a time of war, these 
     worries multiply. The possibility of terrorist attacks on oil 
     fields or transportation in the Mideast are very real. This 
     would force energy prices to skyrocket and immediately impact 
     the most vulnerable families across the country.

  That is by the Latin American Management Association. They fear bin 
Laden will disrupt, perhaps, the refining or pipelines either in Saudi 
Arabia or initiate some terrorist action in the Straits of Hormuz, 
which would cut off our supply.
  We have the Latino Coalition:

       The Senate must act on comprehensive energy legislation 
     before adjourning. Not addressing this issue immediately is 
     both irresponsible and dangerous to America as a nation and 
     particularly to Hispanics as a community. America must 
     increase the level of domestic production so we can reduce 
     our dependency on foreign oil.

  It is signed by Robert Despoda, the president of the Latino 
Coalition.
  The U.S. Mexico Chamber of Commerce:

       We urge the Senate leadership, both Democrats and 
     Republicans, to pass comprehensive energy legislation before 
     adjourning. This is not a partisan issue. Millions of needy 
     Hispanic families need your support now. History would not 
     treat inaction kindly, and neither would Hispanic voters next 
     year around.

  It is signed by Mario Rodriguez, Hispanic Business Roundtable 
President.
  The seniors organizations have spoken out. The group 60 Plus, which I 
might add I have joined at some time:

       It's time the Senate leadership quit demagoguing and come 
     to grips with the energy legislation they bottled up. Our 
     economy depends in no minor way on the passage of an energy 
     plan. Much more important, our security depends on it.

  It is signed by Roger Zion, chairman, 60 Plus.
  The Seniors Coalition participated in support--the United Seniors 
Association.
  I ask unanimous consent for another 5 minutes and I am going to yield 
to some of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Jewish organizations have come aboard. I ask 
unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

         Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish 
           Organizations,
                                   New York, NY, November 16, 2001
     Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
      U.S. Senate, HSOB,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The conference of Presidents of Major 
     American Jewish Organizations at its general meeting on 
     November 14th unanimously supported a resolution calling on 
     Congress to act expeditiously to pass the energy bill that 
     will serve to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of 
     oil. We believe that this important legislation has, in 
     addition, to the economic impact, significant security 
     implications. We hope that Congress will move quickly to pass 
     this vital measure.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you and your 
     colleagues on this and other matters of importance to our 
     country.
     Mortimer B. Zuckerman,
                                                         Chairman.
     Malcolm Hoenlein,
                                          Executive Vice Chairman.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish 
Organizations, in their conference, at a general meeting of November 
14:

       . . . unanimously supported a resolution calling on 
     Congress to act expeditiously to pass the energy bill that 
     will serve to lessen our dependence on foreign sources of 
     oil.

  That was in a letter to Senator Daschle.
  The Zionist Organizations of America say in their letter:

       At a time when our Nation is at war against international 
     terrorism, it is more important than ever that we work 
     quickly to free ourselves of dependence on oil produced by 
     extremist dictators.

  Further, they say on behalf of that organization, which is the oldest 
and one of the largest Zionist movements in the State:

       We are writing to express our strong support for your 
     efforts to make our country less dependent on foreign oil 
     sources by developing the oil resources in Alaska's national 
     wildlife refuge.

  So there you have a fair segment of Americans represented through 
these organizations.
  Then we go to American business, the National Black Chamber of 
Commerce:

       Our growing membership reflects the opinion of more and 
     more Americans all across the political spectrum that we must 
     act now to lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources by 
     addressing the nation's long-neglected energy needs.

  It is signed by Harry Alford, president and CEO.
  U.S. Chamber of Commerce--Bruce Josten, executive vice president, 
U.S. Chamber:

       The events of the last month lend a new urgency to our 
     efforts to increase domestic energy supplies and modernize 
     our nation's energy infrastructure.

  And the National Association of Manufacturers:

       The House of Representatives has answered the President's 
     call. It has taken our obvious energy needs into account--
     along with concerns of many interest groups--and produced 
     reasonable and comprehensive legislation that will help 
     provide stable energy prices and long-term confidence in our 
     economy. But the Senate is dragging its feet. Some seem 
     willing to let politics stop the will of the majority that 
     wants to move forward with comprehensive energy legislation 
     this year. In light of current economic conditions and on 
     behalf of NAM's 14,000 members, I strongly urge Sen. Daschle 
     to move an energy bill to the floor without further delay. It 
     is high time to put the national interest ahead of parochial 
     political interests.

  It is signed by Michael Baroody, National Association of 
Manufacturers.
  Last, the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth.
  They indicate, representing 1,100 businesses, large and small, and 
over 1 million employees:

       All of the members of the Alliance enthusiastically welcome 
     the President's strong appeal for action on a national energy 
     policy. We are also committed to work with Senate Majority 
     Leader Daschle to move forward in a spirit of bipartisanship 
     with comprehensive, national energy legislation.

  The Alliance spokesman is Bruce Josten.
  That completes my comments to some extent. I will not tax the 
Presiding Officer further at this time. I will take a little break.
  But I think it is important that we all listen carefully to these 
groups. They are sending a message to the Senate to get on with its 
obligation to move an energy bill. We have that energy bill here in the 
Chamber. It is the pending business for the first time in several 
years.
  I think it is very important that we look at the political 
ramifications associated. We have elections coming up. We have a great 
deal of unknown exposures relative to the instability in the Mideast.
  I remind my colleagues that in about 1973 we had the Arab oil 
embargo, and

[[Page 23518]]

the gas lines were around the block. The public was blaming everybody. 
They were outraged and inconvenienced. Just one terrorist act could 
bring that situation back.
  Some say it will take time. In 1995, this body passed a bill. It 
included ANWR. The President vetoed it. Had he not vetoed it, we would 
very possibly have oil flowing from ANWR today and oil coming down in 
new U.S. ships. But that was the loss of yesterday which is reflected 
in the vulnerability of our country today.
  I urge my colleagues to think seriously before voting Monday about 
what you are voting for. Are you voting to be responsive to America's 
somewhat extreme environmental community that has used their ANWR issue 
as a cash cow to generate revenue and funding for their organizations? 
When this passes, they will move on to something else. You might say I 
am perhaps being overly critical. I have seen their actions. I know 
what this issue means to them. It gives them a cause.
  Members are going to have to determine whether it will be a 
responsive vote for the environmental groups that oppose this effort or 
a responsive vote to do what is right for America at a time when we are 
not only at war but we are having a recession in this country.
  Indeed, this energy bill would be a significant economic stimulus and 
would dramatically help remove our dependence on imported oil--
particularly at a time when we are contemplating moves in the Mideast, 
and our dependence on Saddam Hussein's oil is over a million barrels a 
day. Yet at the same time we are enforcing a no-fly zone. In enforcing 
that no-fly zone, we are probably using his oil in our aircraft to take 
out his targets, and he is using our money to pay his Republican Guards 
and to develop weapons capability. We already lost two U.S. seamen the 
other day when that tanker sunk.
  My time has expired. I defer to the next Senator seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I rise to speak in favor of the 
pending business, which is the amendment put forward by Senator Lott 
containing the energy bill of Senator Murkowski and a number of other 
Members in a bipartisan fashion.
  It also contains a 6-month moratorium on the issue of human cloning. 
That is the pending business. We are in morning business. I want to 
speak to that particular issue, the pending business itself.
  I think the Senator from Alaska has adequately and very well 
described the need for an energy bill and what is in that energy 
package. He has been very aggressive in expressing the need to do that. 
I wholeheartedly agree with what he is saying. We need an energy bill. 
We need an energy package, and we need less energy dependence.
  If we move soon to address the issue of mass destruction in Iraq, we 
are going to be in far worse shape if Iraq starts cutting down their 
oil and not making it available to the United States. If some other 
countries follow suit, then that means we are going to feel a great 
pinch. Even though we are doing the right things to address the weapons 
of mass destruction, we are going to feel a real pinch if they cut down 
on oil supplies when we have such an international dependence on oil 
from the Middle East in particularly.
  I think what the Senator is putting forward for reducing our energy 
dependence abroad--particularly from the Persian Gulf--and having our 
energy sources here is a valuable thing, a necessary thing, and 
something we need to do today. We need to get it addressed today. I 
applaud the Senator from Alaska. That is why I am a cosponsor of the 
amendment which is the pending business on the floor.


                                Cloning

  The issue I wish to address specifically is another issue of great 
concern and immediacy. It needs to be addressed. I think the world was 
shocked when they read the papers Sunday about the first human clone. 
It is something that was theoretical and something that was talked 
about. It was something in the movies. Now there is a ``Star Wars'' 
movie coming out this year called ``The Clone Wars.'' It has been 
something everybody has been discussing.
  I think people were shocked when they read this headline about the 
first human clone. It isn't something that happened in Europe or South 
Africa. It was in the United States of America.
  People were looking at this and saying: I thought this was in a 
theoretical mode. I didn't realize we were actually at a point of 
cloning humans.
  The House of Representatives passed a bill to address this issue, 
saying we should not be cloning humans. The President addressed this 
issue and said: Send me a bill to ban human cloning; I don't think this 
is something we should be doing.
  The Senate is the only body of the three that has not addressed the 
issue yet.
  In the underlying amendment today on the issue of cloning is a 6-
month moratorium. It is not a complete ban. It is a 6-month moratorium 
on all cloning to say time out. Let's hold up just a little bit while 
we start catching up philosophically and thoughtfully in this body on 
what is taking place on human cloning in the United States of America 
today--not tomorrow, not next month--that we need to address this 
before we get more stories such as this or we start seeing the face of 
a child appearing before this body takes its position on addressing the 
issue of human cloning. Presently, this country has not addressed it.
  You can clone in this country, if you choose to do so, even though I 
have a list of other countries that have acted on this issue. Twenty-
eight other countries or bodies such as the European Parliament have 
already acted on the issue of human cloning. We have not. The Senate 
has not yet acted on this. Twenty-eight other mostly developed 
countries have already acted on this issue in some way or another.
  What does the public say about it? I want to read from today's Roll 
Call magazine on page 10 about the issue of cloning. There was a poll 
of the American public. This is in today's Roll Call magazine, November 
29. It says:

       The majority of Americans clearly remain opposed to 
     cloning, with 87 percent telling ABC News interviewers in 
     early August that cloning humans should be illegal. 
     Respondents were told the following about therapeutic 
     cloning:

  There is a debate going on about that. I am opposed to reproductive 
cloning. Some people are saying they want to try to do therapeutic 
cloning, which I think is a misnomer of the highest order. Therapeutic 
cloning is where you create a human clone. You grow it for a period to 
two weeks. You kill it. It is certainly not therapeutic to clone. You 
harvest the cells out of that for some supposed research or other 
benefit for another individual. That is so-called therapeutic cloning. 
I call it destructive cloning. Some call it therapeutic.
  Let's see what the respondents said. This is how the question was put 
forth:

       Some scientists want to use human cloning for medical 
     treatments. They would produce a fertilized egg, or human 
     embryo, that's an exact genetic copy of a person, and then 
     take cells from this embryo to provide medical treatments for 
     that person. Supporters say this could lead to medical 
     breakthroughs. Opponents say it could lead to the creation of 
     a cloned person because someone could take an embryo that was 
     cloned for medical treatments and use it to produce a child.

  That was the question. That is the way it was phrased on therapeutic 
cloning. It might produce medical breakthroughs but also a reproductive 
clone.
  How did the people respond to the question?
  Sixty-three percent said therapeutic cloning should be illegal and 33 
percent held the opposing view.
  Even framed on just the issue of therapeutic cloning, 63 percent say: 
No, I don't want to do that. I don't want us to go there. Yet we 
continued to dawdle in this body. We did not take up the issue. We 
would not hear it or bring it up on the floor until now. It is the 
pending business with a 6-month moratorium. It is not a complete ban. 
It is a complete ban for the 6 months. But after that, this would 
sunset.
  I think this is a very prudent move that this body should take in 
addressing this highly controversial, highly

[[Page 23519]]

problematic and monumental bioethical issue. Our Nation is currently 
wrestling with monumental bioethical issues. As I mentioned, the House 
of Representatives has dealt with this issue. They have passed a ban on 
human cloning with a 100-vote margin. The President keeps calling for 
it. This body has not acted.
  On these bioethical issues, many of which I have raised on the floor 
previously--and I am going to keep raising in the future--we need to 
debate all these issues, but we need to act now to have a moratorium on 
human cloning so the Senate can properly debate the issue and hopefully 
resolve it in the coming 2 or 3 months. That is what we are asking for 
in the underlying amendment.
  I would like to take this opportunity to address some of the profound 
moral issues that this Nation is going to need to wrestle with and the 
Senate is going to need to wrestle with for us to deal with the issue 
of human cloning.
  Human cloning demands the public's attention, in part, because it 
implicitly revolves around the meaning of human dignity, around the 
meaning of human life, and the inalienable rights that belong to every 
person. Should a clone belong to someone or should a clone not belong 
to someone? I think we ought to resolve that issue before it starts 
being forced upon us by private companies creating clones.
  Some will argue that the issue simply needs to be studied before any 
research begins, a notion which does not respect the rights of the 
clone. Some people say: Let's just create a group of clones out there, 
and let's see and let's research and let it evolve.
  Shouldn't we fundamentally deal with the issue first about what is a 
clone? Is it the property of somebody who created it? Is it a person? 
It is genetically identical to the person from whom it was created. It 
is physically identical. Is this a person or is this a piece of 
property?
  We should be debating that ahead of them being out there in the 
public. Should we allow people to create clones of themselves for spare 
body parts? That would be down the road a longways, but people are 
thinking about those sorts of things now. We now have the creation of 
the first human clone.
  I think clearly we should err on the side of caution at this point in 
time. We should call a timeout. We should have a 6-month moratorium so 
we can all sit down and think about this.
  This is not going to kill the research into helpful areas of 
research. Some people looking at this are saying: OK. They are 
confusing it with embryonic stem cell research, which I personally have 
a deep problem with because you are destroying an embryo to create that 
research. But this moratorium does not apply to embryonic stem cell 
research. That is going on. There is even Federal funding for some 
embryonic stem cell research, as the President outlined in an August 
speech with the NIH, much with which I continue to disagree.
  I think we ought to focus on the adult stem cell. Be that as it may, 
the embryonic stem cell work is going on and would not be affected by 
this moratorium.
  What this moratorium goes at is saying: Do not create human clones 
for any purposes. Do not create that. After a period of 6 months it 
expires.
  So for those purposes, I think this is an entirely appropriate issue 
for us to push the pause button. The alternative of this is for us to 
do nothing. But if we do nothing, if we do not put a pause on this, you 
are going to see a lot more headlines such as the one shown on this 
magazine. You are going to see a lot more human clones or you are going 
to hear about them being implanted in women once they get to the point 
where the technology is such that that can take place. You are going to 
see all that taking place and this body will not have even spoken. We 
will not have said, yes, we agree or we disagree. The President has 
spoken and the House has spoken, but we will not have even said, OK, we 
agree we should or we disagree. We will not have done anything.
  That is why I plead with the sponsors of the bill that we should take 
up this particular issue. We would allow this amendment that has the 
important energy language in it for energy security that contains the 
important moratorium on human cloning. And that would be allowed to be 
voted on by this body. We would not have a cloture vote that rules out 
the vote on these two imminently important issues that need to come 
before this body at this particular time.
  So I plead with my colleagues, do not vote on a procedure that knocks 
off these two very important issues. Let us have a vote on these two 
issues.
  We are going to be in town. We should take up these very important 
issues that are of immediate importance and need to be considered. I 
look forward to discussing this further with my colleagues as we get a 
chance to bring this amendment up for a vote.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Ohio.

                          ____________________