[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23521-23525]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Ohio for 
outlining his position on the legislation we are discussing, the energy 
bill, H.R. 4. His presentation certainly summarized the fact that this 
indeed is in the national security interest of our Nation. He pointed 
out that our continued dependence on such unreliable sources as Iraq, 
at a time when we are not sure what our next move will be, puts us in a 
rather embarrassing position. He has certainly highlighted the 
vulnerability of this country, which is growing; there is absolutely no 
question about that.
  The question we have--legitimate question--is just whether or not 
H.R. 4, which has passed the House of Representatives and is before us, 
does the job as a comprehensive energy bill. I am going to spend a 
little time on that because I think the public deserves to know what is 
in H.R. 4.
  I will again ask my colleagues to reflect on the vote that is going 
to take place on Monday. This is not a vote on the issue of ANWR; this 
is a vote on the entire bill that passed the House of Representatives. 
A vote will be seen and read strictly as a vote on passing an energy 
bill. I think that is significant. It is a vote for or against passing 
an energy bill that has passed the House of Representatives.
  With that, of course, is the cloning ban. I support that. The Senator 
from Kansas made an excellent presentation on the merits of that. It is 
rather unusual to see such devoid issues brought together, but that 
sometimes happens in this body. It is important to point that out and 
highlight that Senator Brownback's presentation is simply a 6-month 
ban. What we are seeing here on cloning is the scientific and medical 
movement is so fast that we are not sure where the ethical evaluation 
should come down. Therefore, a 6-month moratorium on cloning is 
certainly in order. I certainly support that.
  Here is what H.R. 4 does for the Nation. The amendment is the 
legislative portion of the President's comprehensive energy policy. It 
aims to secure America's energy future with a new national energy 
strategy that is designed to reduce energy demand, increase energy 
efficiency and supply, and enhance our energy infrastructure and our 
energy security.
  I think that should address the issue some have raised that this is 
nothing but a very narrow bill containing ANWR. Let me tell you what we 
have in here in the sense of reducing demand. This bill reauthorizes 
Federal energy conservation programs and directs the Federal Government 
to take leadership in energy conservation with new energy-saving goals.
  Secondly, it expands Federal energy savings performance contracting 
authority. It increases the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
LIHEAP. It provides weatherization and State energy program 
authorization levels to meet the needs of low-income Americans. It 
expands the EPA and the Department of Energy's so-called energy star 
program. It directs the EPA and the Department of Energy to determine 
whether energy star labels should be extended to additional products. 
We used to see seals of the Underwriters Laboratories. This is much 
like that, but these stars are awarded for reduction in energy use. In 
other words, you can get a better, more efficient refrigerator, but you 
probably won't because your other one is working just fine. But these 
new ones deserve a particular rating and some identification. That is 
what the energy star program is all about. It highlights that this is 
indeed an energy-saving device and technology that has been put on your 
iron, refrigerator, or dishwasher.
  We need to encourage Americans to go out and buy these. But, 
obviously, some are reluctant because theirs is working fine. But they 
can reduce energy consumption and therefore their energy bill. It 
directs the DOE to set standards for appliance standby mode energy use. 
It reduces light truck fuel consumption by 5 billion gallons over 6 
years. Now this is the CAFE--people are saying, ``Where are your CAFE 
savings?'' It directs the DOE, in the sense of light truck fuel 
consumption, to reduce it by 5 billion gallons over 6 years. It also 
improves Federal fleet fuel economy and expands the use of hybrid 
vehicles.
  What do we mean by Federal fleet? We say before we put mandates on 
the general public, let's put it on the Government fleet and see how it 
works. That is kind of the old saying that charity begins at home. So 
it will improve the Federal fleet economy. It increases funding for the 
DOE's energy conservation and efficiency R&D programs designed to 
reduce consumption of energy. It expands HUD programs to promote 
energy-efficient single and multifamily housing. That should answer 
pretty much the concern some have raised, well, you don't have anything 
in your bill to reduce demand. I think we do.
  On the issue of increased supply, we have provisions for 
environmentally sensitive oil and gas exploration on the Arctic Coastal 
Plain. That is ANWR. I will talk about ANWR later. Clearly, the 
reserves are there. It is estimated to be between 5 and 16 billion 
barrels. We have an average somewhere in between 5 and 16. It will be 
as big as Prudhoe Bay, now producing the 13 billionth barrel. We can 
get 10 out in the field--the largest field ever found before. I have a 
chart here that shows a comparison with our good neighbors from Texas, 
and I am sure my staff can find it in a moment or two. As they look, I 
will move into the other areas of increased supply.
  I think we all assimilate in our minds domestic oil reserves coming

[[Page 23522]]

from the great State of Texas, and the great State of Texas has been 
producing a lot of oil for a long time. This says: ANWR, More Oil Than 
Texas. This is from the Energy Information Administration which reports 
that Texas proven crude oil reserves are 5.3 billion barrels.
  In 1998, the USGS estimated there is a 95-percent chance of more than 
5.7 billion barrels from ANWR, a 50/50 chance of more than 10 billion 
barrels of oil and a 5-percent chance of more than 16 billion barrels 
of oil. So if we want to use the average, ANWR has more potential than 
Texas.
  I have heard my friend, the junior Senator from Massachusetts, speak 
in generalities about why this should not be open. I have never heard a 
good explanation as to whether or not he believes there is evidence to 
suggest it cannot be opened safely, but he does generalize that it is 
insignificant.
  If the oil in ANWR were to be the average of 10 billion barrels, ANWR 
would supply 321,428 barrels per day to the State of Massachusetts. 
That would last the State of Massachusetts 85.2 years. The State of 
Connecticut uses 216,000 barrels per day. It would last Connecticut 126 
years. South Dakota uses 59,000 barrels a day. It would provide South 
Dakota with 460.3 years for their petroleum needs. I throw that out 
simply as a matter of comparison when individuals say the increased 
supply is insignificant. It is not insignificant.
  Further, increased supply authorizes new oil and gas R&D for 
unconventional and ultra-deep-water production. We are seeing that in 
the Gulf of Mexico. That is where our new finds are, in deep water. The 
industry has done an extraordinary job of advanced technology, and they 
have been very fortunate. They have had very few accidents. It provides 
royalty relief incentives for deepwater leases in the central and 
western Gulf of Mexico. It streamlines the administration of oil and 
gas leases on Federal land. It authorizes the Department of Energy to 
develop accelerated clean coal power initiatives. So it recognizes the 
significant role of coal, which makes up nearly 50 percent of our power 
generation in this country.
  It establishes alternative fuel vehicles and green school bus 
demonstration programs. That should appeal to many Members. It reduces 
the royalty rate for development of biothermal energy and expedites 
leases. It provides for regular assessment of renewable energy 
resources and impediments to their use. It streamlines the licensing 
process for hydroelectric dams and encourages increased output. It 
provides new authorization for fossil, nuclear, hydrogen, biomass, and 
renewable R&D.
  These things are included to increase the supply, but they are not 
only in ANWR. There is authorization for new technology, hydrogen, 
biomass, renewable R&D, because we want to remove our dependence even 
greater on imported oil. The difficulty many people fail to recognize 
is America and the world move on oil because we do not have any other 
alternative. We wish we did. We can generate electricity from coal, 
from gas, from nuclear, from wind, but we cannot move America and we 
cannot move the world. That is why we are becoming so dependent on 
Mideast sources.
  If this bill passes this House and this Senate, two things are going 
to happen. We are going to send a message to OPEC. The message is going 
to be loud and clear that the United States is committed to reduce its 
dependence on OPEC. OPEC, I think, will read that and decide, all 
things being equal, they had better be careful how they operate that 
cartel because if they move it up too high, why, obviously it is not 
going to be in their interest. So I think it will be a curb on prices 
because the more we produce domestically, the less we will import. As 
we know, those countries need those gas fuels, particularly the Saudis.
  Finally, in the area of enhanced infrastructure and energy security, 
it sets goals for reduction of United States dependence on foreign oil 
and Iraqi imports. It initiates the review of existing rights of way on 
Federal lands for energy potential. It directs the Department of Energy 
to implement R&D and demonstrate use of distributed energy resources. 
It invests in a new transmission infrastructure R&D program to ensure 
reliable electricity.
  It requires a study of boutique fuels and issues to minimize refinery 
bottlenecks and supply shortages because, as we remember, it was not so 
very long ago under the previous administration, when we had a shortage 
of heating oil in the Northeast in the wintertime, the decision was 
made to open up SPR. We took 30 million barrels out of SPR. Suddenly we 
found we did not have the refining capacity because we had not built 
new refineries in this country in 20, 25 years, so all we did was 
displace what we were importing. That is kind of the situation. So this 
does provide some relief.
  It initiates supply potential for renewable transportation of fuels 
to displaced oil imports, it offers scholarships to train the next 
generation of energy workers, and it prohibits pipelines from being 
placed on national registers of historic places. That is what the bill 
does.
  Last night the majority whip, Senator Reid, my good friend, came to 
the Chamber, and I do not know whether he was ill informed or not, but 
in any event I will comment a little bit on his statement. I assume it 
was an attempt to support the majority leader's priorities from the 
standpoint of the remaining time we have in this session and what those 
priorities should be. I know many of my friends on both sides of the 
aisle feel very strongly about the railroad retirement legislation, but 
the majority leader stated he thinks it is more important this body 
consider the railroad retirement legislation than comprehensive energy 
legislation. That is contrary to polling information I just presented. 
That polling information, as I said, indicated that 95 percent of 
Americans say Federal action on an energy bill is important. That is 
not enough because 72 percent of the Americans say passing an energy 
bill is a higher priority than other actions Congress might take.
  We have seen polls from time to time. We take them or leave them, but 
this was an IPSOS-Reid poll done in November. So clearly there is a 
little bit of difference expressed by the polling information on what 
the priorities should be.
  Now, evidently, the leader thinks it is more important that we 
consider a farm bill. It is kind of interesting about how we set 
priorities because the farm bill does not expire until the end of next 
year. Does it have the same prioritization as the exposure we are 
seeing in the Persian Gulf, the danger of terrorism to Saudi Arabia in 
bringing down the Royal Family, a couple of tankers colliding in a 
terrorist attack in the Straits of Hormuz, terrorizing oil fields? 
These are the crises that would come about, and clearly with our 
increased dependence on Iraqi oil and the fact we are looking to 
finalize things over there against those who sponsor terrorism, it is 
beyond me how the leader would consider the farm bill as being more 
important, particularly when it is not due to expire until the end of 
next year.
  I know what good soldiers are about. I have been in the majority and 
I have been in the minority, and sometimes we are asked to defend the 
indefensible. That is politics. I think the whip is doing a good job as 
we have come to understand he always does in the Senate. However, I 
really cannot stand by and watch the facts simply evaporate. As I 
indicated, we simply cannot stand by and watch the facts simply 
evaporate. I emphasize ``facts.''
  During his comments, the majority whip stated that the overall 
benefits to the country for developing a small area of the Arctic 
Coastal Plain were ``nonexistent.'' I find it rather ironic that he 
would make that blatant statement. Nonexistent? Did the majority whip 
really say the overall benefit to the country would be nonexistent when 
we have seen the Teamsters, the unions, the veterans, the minority 
groups in this country say they think this is the most important thing 
for the Senate to take up, and the fact that the House has passed it 
sends a strong message. We have some work to do.
  When he said that would be nonexistent, I asked myself, can he really

[[Page 23523]]

believe that? Does he really think the facts support his assertion? 
Knowing that the majority whip would never deliberately mislead other 
Senators, I only conclude he doesn't know all the facts. He, as well as 
the majority leader, have never taken the time to visit the area. We 
have made repeated offers. I have taken many Members there.
  It is ironic we only have to justify on the side of the proponents 
the merits of the issue based on our personal experience, the 
experience of my senior colleague, Senator Stevens, and Representative 
Don Young. The administration has seen the area, physically gone up 
there. The Secretary of Interior has been up there twice. I took her up 
last February. We took off with a wind chill factor of 72 degrees below 
zero. It is tough country.
  One chart shows the bleakness of the Arctic in the wintertime. I am 
also convinced the only way the Senator might learn those facts, if he 
doesn't visit the area, would be if I were to share more and more facts 
with him in the hopes he will understand. I am here to make the Nation 
aware of the significance of what this could mean to our energy 
security. I will also make the Nation aware of the benefits to the 
country in opening a small sliver of the Arctic Coastal Plain for 
development.
  Today, I will share with the Senate what the Clinton administration 
said about ANWR. I think my colleagues should know what the previous 
administration said about ANWR, as related by the Energy Information 
Agency in May of 2000, an agency created by Congress to give unbiased 
energy information. I will come back to this in a moment.
  ANWR is the area on this chart to the right on the map of Alaska. 
Also shown is the State of South Carolina for a size comparison. There 
are 19 million acres in ANWR. We have 365 in the whole State. ANWR, on 
the big chart, the 19 million acres, is already predestined by Congress 
for specific designation. The darker yellow is part of the refuge. The 
lighter yellow is in a wilderness in perpetuity. That is about 8 
million acres. The green at the top is the 1002 area, or the ANWR 
coastal plain. The geologists say this is a very productive area. It is 
60 miles from Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay, of course, is the field that 
has been producing for some 27 years.
  The TAPS pipeline is an 800-mile pipeline traversing the length of 
Alaska. Interestingly enough, when that was built 27 years ago, we had 
arguments in the Senate whether that could be built safely. What would 
happen to the animals? What would happen to a hot pipeline in 
permafrost. Would it break? All the same arguments are being used 
today. There was a tie in the Senate, and the Vice President came in 
and broke the tie. I cannot recall how many hundreds of billions of 
barrels we have received, but for an extended period of time that was 
flowing at 2 million barrels a day. It is a little over 1 million 
barrels at this time.
  This map shows another area worthy of some consideration. That is the 
red dot. That is the footprint associated with the development. In the 
House bill that is 2,000 acres. I know the occupant of the chair knows 
what 2,000 acres is. Robert Redford has a farm in Utah of 5,000 acres. 
Keep in mind this authorization is for 2,000 acres, a permanent 
footprint, out of 19 million acres. Is that unreasonable? I don't think 
it is.
  Some are under the impression this is a pristine area that has not 
been subject to any development or any population. Of course, a village 
is at the top of the map. Real people live there. They have hopes and 
aspirations for a better lifestyle and better working conditions, jobs, 
health conditions, schools. There is a picture of some of the Eskimo 
kids going to school and nobody there to shovel the walks. There is 
also a picture of the public buildings, in front of the community hall, 
with pictures of the Eskimo's two modes of transportation: One is a 
snow machine and the other is a bicycle. That should take care of the 
myth that nobody is up there. Real people live there.
  The Coastal Plain comprises approximately 8 percent of the 19 million 
acres. ANWR is along the geological trend that is productive in the 
sense that the oil flows in the same general area. This is the largest 
unexplored potential production onshore base in the entire United 
States, according to the Energy Information Agency.
  I return now to the statement of the Clinton administration: This is 
the largest unexplored potential onshore base in the United States. The 
Energy Information Agency, under the Clinton administration, did not 
think the benefits of ANWR would be nonexistent on our Nation's energy 
supplies. That is why I am amused that the majority whip would use the 
term ``nonexistent.''
  The Department of Interior says if the Energy Information 
Administration isn't good enough, how about the Department of the 
Interior under Bruce Babbitt?

  I am wondering if that argument isn't enough to convince the majority 
whip that the benefits of ANWR are not nonexistent on energy supplies.
  According to a 1998 Department of the Interior study under the 
previous administration, there is a 95-percent probability--that is 19 
in 20 chances--that at least 5.7 billion barrels of oil in ANWR is 
recoverable. That is about half what we would recover initially from 
Prudhoe Bay. There is a 50-50 chance that there is 10.3 billion barrels 
of recoverable oil. And there is a 5-percent chance at least 16 billion 
barrels are recoverable.
  These are not my numbers. These are not coming from Frank Murkowski 
or Don Young or Ted Stevens. These aren't the environmental fundraiser 
groups' numbers. These are Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's 
scientific numbers.
  I fail to recognize how the majority whip can add these up and 
suggest that it is nonexistent, as was stated by the whip. How much oil 
is there reason to believe is there? We don't know. We won't know until 
we get in there. Senators might wonder how much these numbers add up 
to. How much impact would oil from ANWR have on our Nation's energy 
security, our economy, our jobs?
  Let me try to put that in perspective. According to the Independent 
Energy Information Administration, at the end of 2000, Texas had 5.27 
billion barrels of proven reserves. That means there is a 95-percent 
chance that ANWR has more oil than all of Texas. Think of the jobs 
associated with the oil industry in Texas.
  California has 3.8 billion barrels of proven reserves. There is a 95-
percent chance that ANWR has more oil than all of California.
  New Mexico has 718 million barrels of proven reserve. There is a 95-
percent chance that ANWR can recover almost 8 times as much oil as is 
proven to exist in New Mexico.
  Louisiana has 529 million barrels of proven reserves. Oklahoma, 610 
million; Michigan, 56 million; Pennsylvania, 15 million; Nevada, 
Massachusetts, and Connecticut had no proven reserves.
  In fact, the Energy Information Agency states that the lower 48 
States have total proven reserves of 17,184,000,000 barrels of oil. 
That's it, 17 billion. This could come in at the high end. If we are 
lucky enough to hit Secretary Babbitt's high number of 16 billion 
barrels, ANWR would almost double U.S. reserves.
  These are not my figures. They are figures of the previous Secretary 
of the Interior. Are these benefits nonexistent, as the whip has 
indicated last evening?
  I hope this will clarify the issue for the majority whip, and any 
other Senators who might wonder whether ANWR would have an impact on 
our energy security, economy, or our jobs. To repeat, ANWR could 
potentially double our reserves overnight. Do I know it will? No. Does 
anyone else? No. But I will certainly take the word of the Clinton 
administration scientists over the word of the environmental 
fundraising groups. They have never wanted this issue resolved because 
they would no longer have their best fundraising issue to lie their way 
into well-intentioned American wallets. It is easy to understand how 
people might be misled. These groups have simply not been telling the 
truth, period.

[[Page 23524]]

  I am happy to debate any and all, at any time, on the merits of this 
issue. If there are those who do not believe me, or the Clinton 
administration, how about organized labor? Teamsters, maritime, 
construction trade unions, the AFL/CIO, operating engineers, and many 
other unions have joined us in support of this legislation. They think 
it will have a great impact on the economy, on our national security, 
on our jobs. They estimate between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs will be 
created here at home by opening ANWR.
  They do not believe the benefits to our Nation are nonexistent, as 
the majority whip has indicated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent I may have another 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to take a note here, 
relative to the number of ships that would have to be built if, indeed, 
ANWR were opened. A lot of people overlook the reality that Alaskan oil 
is unique. It has to move in U.S.-flagged vessels because the Jones Act 
requires that. Any movement of goods and material between two U.S. 
ports has to be moved in a U.S.-flagged vessel. So all the oil from 
Alaska moves down in ships built in U.S. yards, with U.S. crews, and 
flying the American flag.
  This is the largest concentration of U.S.-flagged tankers in 
existence in our country, in this particular trade. They would require, 
if ANWR opens, 19 double-hulled tankers which would add about $4 
billion to the economy and create 5,000 jobs each for 17 years because 
these new ships will come on as replacements for others.
  I do not know if those benefits are nonexistent, but to the States--
Maine, where they are likely to build some of these ships; Alabama, 
Mississippi, Texas, Washington, California--these are jobs. These are 
good jobs, good jobs in U.S. shipyards.
  What about these other ships that bring in oil, the 56 percent that 
are coming from overseas? They bring their oil in foreign-flagged 
vessels. They don't have the deep pockets of an Exxon.
  I will conclude because I see other Senators are here waiting for 
recognition. But I want to ask again, the benefits are nonexistent? I 
hope this will clarify the issue for the majority whip and any other 
Senators who might wonder whether ANWR would have any impact on our 
energy security, the economy, and jobs.
  To repeat, ANWR could almost double our reserves overnight. Do I know 
it will? Does anyone? No. But I, again, would take the word of the 
Clinton administration scientists over the word of the environmental 
fundraising groups. They have never wanted this issue resolved because, 
as I indicated, they would no longer have the best fundraising issue to 
lie their way into well-intentioned American wallets.
  It would be easy to understand how they might be misled but, as I 
have indicated, they pulled the wool over the public's eyes. This is an 
issue that involves our national energy security. It is a very 
fundamental issue.
  I will conclude by, again, referring to the other organizations--the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, Vietnam Veterans 
Institute--which think it is good for the national security. They do 
not believe the benefits to our Nation are nonexistent, and they ought 
to know. They fought the wars.
  The House acted on national energy security legislation before 
September 11. Frankly, they have shown up the Senate. In that body, 
committees were allowed to advance energy legislation, debate it, and 
pass it to the floor for further consideration.
  Here, the majority leader seized the bill from the committee of 
jurisdiction, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, of which I am 
a ranking member. I used to be chairman. He has seized the bill from 
the committee of jurisdiction and has substituted his will for the will 
of the committee. He has bypassed the committee process entirely.
  I am very disappointed that we were not able to bring around the 
majority to recognize this matter should go to the committee of 
authorization and not be taken away from it, but I am not chairman of 
that committee anymore.
  Finally, I offer up this question to the Senate: If, indeed, the 
benefits to this country were nonexistent, there was so little oil 
there, then why is there such a huge campaign to deny Americans that 
oil? We can all ask ourselves why--16 billion barrels of oil, times $30 
a barrel, is almost one-half trillion dollars.
  It is about $480 billion; $480 billion is nonexistent? If that is the 
price about the time ANWR comes on line, that means $480 billion stays 
at home rather than being spent abroad for oil. With that kind of 
money, we can better provide for our schools, our security, our health 
care system, our elderly.
  Here we are today rising before this body at last to take up an 
energy bill. The amendment offered by Senator Lott is the underlying 
legislation. Divisions A through G of the amendment will provide us 
with the remainder of a comprehensive energy policy to guide this 
Nation into the future.
  As I have indicated specifically, these provisions provide ways to do 
the following: Reduce our demand for energy, increase our domestic 
supply of energy, invest in our energy infrastructure, and enhance 
energy security.
  I will go into more detail at a later time.
  But for the past decade, America has lacked a comprehensive energy 
strategy. We are aware of that. Without such a guidebook, our record of 
economic expansion and resulting growth in demand has outpaced our 
energy production. We saw a similar situation last year in the sense of 
a perfect storm, if you will. All the parts of our energy supply were 
stretched, and there were limits on output. We actually saw that occur.
  As we know, when supply doesn't meet demand, prices go up. When you 
have a cartel such as OPEC, they are able to do things that antitrust 
laws in the United States simply prohibit. They are able to set prices 
by reducing supply. As we all know, when supply doesn't meet demand, 
the price rises.
  Rising energy prices have already been blamed by many economists for 
putting us into the recession we now face. It is a matter of particular 
importance that we develop a comprehensive national energy strategy for 
our economic and our national security.
  Under previous control of this body by the Republicans, the Senate 
had a very aggressive timetable. That timetable was to get a 
comprehensive energy bill passed by the Fourth of July. We were working 
on this bill and introduced it shortly after we came in last year in 
late January. We had a change. And the GOP left a legacy to the other 
side. We have done our part.
  When I was chairman, our committee had 24 hearings. We heard from 160 
witnesses, and we introduced the Murkowski-Breaux bipartisan bill and 
were ready to move. The President's national energy policy framed the 
debate.
  I can see no reason why the Democrats should not have kept this 
schedule. But since they took control, we have had a few hearings and 
heard from some of the same witnesses. We started a markup on the bill 
of the new chairman in August. We engaged in good-faith discussions to 
come to a consensus only to find our committee stripped of its 
jurisdiction by the majority leader because he pulled the plug on the 
Energy Committee's deliberations and simply took over the process 
bypassing the authorizing committee and bypassing Senator Bingaman, who 
is the chairman. I can only guess why.
  We had the votes in committee to pass out an energy bill. We asked 
the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for a date certain. We asked the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Bingaman, for a date certain. The 
statement from our Senate leadership is there will be no new energy 
bill this year. That statement has been made.
  At least we are in the Chamber tonight. We have an energy bill up for 
consideration. I thank all my colleagues who played a role in assuring 
this would come about, because I made

[[Page 23525]]

a commitment that we were going to bring this matter up before we go 
out on recess. Now we are in it.
  In recent weeks, there has been considerable talk of the need to 
address the Nation's problems in the old spirit in a bipartisan manner. 
I wish we could. We have seen this with respect to an antiterrorist 
package, the airline security measure, and several other pieces of 
legislation. Sadly, this air of ``bipartisanship'' has broken down with 
respect to energy policy. We now find ourselves in a partisan standoff.
  I think, though, we all agree we need an energy policy. We have one 
which passed the House. That is before us. It is up to us to address 
whether we are going to simply walk out of here without an energy 
policy or take this up seriously, vote it out, get it to conference, 
and respond to the request of our President.
  We have seen threats of filibusters, suspension of committee 
activities, and a failure to give the American people a fair, open, and 
honest debate on this issue.
  I do not think, and I refuse to accept, that meeting the energy needs 
of this Nation is a partisan issue.
  At the beginning of the session, I sought out my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle for their ideas and suggestions. And as 
committee chairman, I delayed introducing any legislation until a 
measure could be developed that reflected their interests. We worked 
hard on that.
  S. 389, while not perfect, met that requirement and remains the only 
bipartisan comprehensive energy measure introduced in the Senate.
  At a time when the country is seeking unity and bipartisanship, we 
should be moving forward with a bipartisan energy bill. Just as we did 
last year with respect to electricity, we should put the contentious 
issues to a fair and open debate, and vote on them.
  Repeatedly, the President has called on Congress to pass energy 
legislation as a part of our efforts to enhance national security.
  With H.R. 4, the bill now sitting on the Senate calendar, the House 
of Representatives has done its job. Now it's the Senate's turn. The 
best thing we can do to ensure this Nation's energy security is to act 
now: take up the House bill, amend it, and go to conference.
  Make no mistake about it. That is what we should do. This energy 
policy proposal will create new jobs in domestic production and new 
energy technologies. This will be a significant economic stimulus that 
couldn't come any sooner--when the economy needs thousands of new jobs.
  At stake are billions of dollars in construction spending, hundreds 
of thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars that won't go overseas in 
future energy spending.
  Our increasing dependence on foreign oil helps to support the very 
terrorists we now fight in the Middle East and elsewhere. We import 
nearly a million barrels per day of oil from Iraq, and some of our oil 
payments to Saudi Arabia may have been used against us in the events of 
September 11.
  As a matter of national importance, we cannot allow our energy 
security to get bogged down in partisanship and procedural maneuvers. 
One of the purposes of committees is to test various proposals and to 
provide the Senate with a considered recommendation. A majority of the 
members of the Energy Committee have been willing to provide this 
advice--and report out a bill. Yet the majority leader and the 
committee chairman have seen fit to ``short-circuit'' the regular order 
to avoid votes on certain issues. These votes would prevail if we could 
get the matter up in the committee.
  The American people deserve better than this. They deserve more than 
just partisan sniping on energy issues. We certainly need to provide 
for the security of our energy supply. We need to deal with our 
infrastructure and our domestic capacity for development, refining and 
transportation and transmission. And we should take those steps that we 
can all agree on to promote the energy technologies of the next decade 
and beyond.
  Our Nation deserves a fair, honest, and open debate on all aspects of 
the important energy issues, including ANWR. This is a debate that a 
majority of members were ready to have in committee, but that 
opportunity was denied us. We are ready to have that debate and let the 
votes fall where they may on all the contentious issues that remain.
  So let us now finally--since we are on the bill--have this debate so 
we can look the American people--our constituents--in the eye when we 
go home for the holidays and say that, yes, we have passed, in the 
national interest, an energy bill, H.R. 4, which passed the House 
overwhelmingly; and then tell them we are going to do our part to 
provide safe, secure, and affordable energy supplies now and into the 
future.
  At this critical point in our Nation's history, we clearly need a 
national energy strategy to ensure a stable, reliable, and affordable 
energy supply.
  While many choices have been forced upon us in the aftermath of 
September 11, we now have the chance to choose our energy future. The 
other alternative is simply to dodge the issue. Will we have the 
courage to act? Will we have the courage to make the difficult 
decisions we avoided some 10 years ago?
  In 1995, ANWR was in the omnibus bill. It was an energy bill. It 
passed this body. It was vetoed by the President. Had he signed that 
order, we would know what was in ANWR. We could be producing from ANWR. 
The question is, When are we going to start?
  As the President said, there was a good bill passed out of the House 
of Representatives. Now it is the job of the Senate. The Senate can and 
must act.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this amendment to 
ensure the security of our energy supply, our economy, and our Nation 
for years to come.
  I thank the Chair for being patient. We are going to be back on this 
tomorrow. I thank the majority whip for his indulgence as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Before my friend, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, 
leaves the Chamber, I did want to say that I was a little disappointed, 
when he went over the reserves in various States, that he said Nevada 
had nothing.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think the terminology is ``inexistent.''
  Mr. REID. Inexistent? The reason I mention that is for 6 years Nevada 
had the largest single producing oil well in the United States in a 
place called Railroad Valley. The well went dry about 8 or 9 years ago. 
But for 6 years it was the best in the country.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was talking about current reserves, so there very 
well may have been a well in Nevada, but there isn't anymore.

                          ____________________