[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23627-23631]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me make sure we know where we are 
on the legislation before the Senate. The underlying bill is the 
railroad retirement bill. We have two amendments combined as one, one 
is the adoption of H.R. 4, the House energy bill; the other issue 
concerns a moratorium on cloning for 6 months. That is Senator 
Brownback's legislation.
  I will speak today on the energy issue because I think it is 
paramount. If we look at the polling information we have, it is obvious 
what American public opinion consists of. This survey was done in 
November by the IPSOS-Reid Corporation: 95 percent of Americans say any 
Federal action on energy is important; 72 percent of Americans say 
passing an energy bill is a higher priority than any other action 
Congress could take. Mr. President, 73 percent of Americans say 
Congress should make the energy bill part of President Bush's stimulus 
plan. Mr. President, 67 percent of Americans say expiration of new 
energy sources in the United States, specifically ANWR, is convincing 
reason to support passing an energy policy bill. That is 67 percent.
  I am not particularly happy with the way the energy bill, H.R. 4, 
which we introduced, is here. It is the House bill, which did pass the 
House by a substantial margin. I am fearful the vote on Monday at 5 
o'clock will be somewhat convoluted because you will be looking at 
several issues at the same time and Members can justify their positions 
on perhaps previously having voiced their support for the railroad 
retirement bill, or voiced their opposition against cloning, or been a 
proponent or opponent of the House bill.
  In any event, the good news is we finally have a energy bill up for 
discussion because that has not been the case before, because of the 
majority leader's refusal to allow us time but, more significantly, the 
refusal to allow the committee process to work.
  As we have seen ordinarily around here, the committees do their work 
and report out a bill and the bill comes before an entire Senate. In 
this particular case, the energy bill was taken away from the committee 
chairman and taken over basically by Senator Tom Daschle. In so doing, 
he really stripped, if you will, the responsibility of the committee of 
jurisdiction. But as the ranking member, all I can do is express my 
frustration. As a consequence, we still do not have the Democratic bill 
that we anticipate is coming.
  I think it is fair to say there has been a deliberate attempt to 
discourage the taking up of the House bill before the Senate body, in 
the manner in which the majority leader has simply exerted his 
influence. So the members of the committee of jurisdiction will not 
have had any input in the development, at least from the Republican 
side, of whatever we are likely to see next week.
  Some have said, what is the importance of this? Is there some reason 
we are rushing into this? I remind my colleagues, we are not rushing 
into it. This has been before us for a couple of years. We introduced 
the bill, Senator Breaux and I, earlier this year. We have had hearings 
on it. On the other hand, we were precluded from reporting it out of 
committee for the simple reason that we didn't have the votes to report 
it out of committee.
  This morning we had some discussion with the Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman. He made several arguments against one 
portion of the bill and that is the opening of ANWR. I am going to be 
rebutting these over a period of time because that seems to be the only 
way we can focus in on the points and try to counter those points with 
facts rather than fiction.
  What he failed to mention earlier today was the rights and interests 
of the Native people of Alaska who live in the 1002 area, the area of 
Kaktovik, and their rights to develop their own land in this area. As 
the chart behind me shows, you can see the ownership of the 95,000 
acres of land that is private Native land. This is the 95,000 acres of 
Native land that is within the 1002 area. That is the area that would 
be leased.
  In the manner in which this land was transferred over to them, while 
they have the land in fee simple, they have no authority to drill for 
gas for heating their own homes. These are American citizens entitled 
to the same rights as any other American citizen. They do live in the 
area. As a consequence, their rights are certainly thwarted opening up 
this area where they would have not only access to develop those lands; 
they would also have access for a route out if they should wish to 
initiate some exploration.
  It is important to recognize there is a human element here. The human 
element is the residents, the kid who lives in Kaktovik. You have seen 
the picture before. Some people are under the impression that this is 
the Serengeti of the Arctic. We have views of the Serengeti, but that 
is Kaktovik, and it is a village of less than 400 people. The point is, 
people live there. The point is, it is a very harsh environment.
  All through the debate there is no mention of the rights of these 
people. It is always the environmental community that says we should 
not support opening ANWR. They come up with no evidence, no suggestion 
we cannot do it safely. It is just generalities.
  Throughout this debate what I am going to be doing is countering the 
comments that have already been made because they are the same tired 
arguments you have heard previously. One of the comments is it is only 
a 6-month supply. That is a ridiculous argument. How anybody could even 
repeat it here is beyond me because we all know that could only happen 
if there was no oil production in the United States, it all stopped, 
there would be no further importation coming into the United States in 
ships, and we would only depend on one source. That is a bogus 
argument. I am amazed that intelligent Members of this body would even 
stoop to suggesting that anyone would buy that kind of argument, a 6-
month supply.
  Clearly, what we are talking about is a significant discovery, 
somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels a day. What does that 
mean? That means more oil, more proven oil than in Texas. Texas is 
always considered to be one of the major oil producing States and it 
is. But from the Energy Information Administration Reports, Texas' 
proven reserves total 5.3 billion barrels. In 1998, the USGS estimated 
there was a 95-percent chance that more than 5.7 billion barrels would 
be found in ANWR. That is a 95-percent chance. That is more than the 
proven reserves in Texas today.
  There is a 50-percent chance of more than 10 billion barrels, and a 
5-percent chance of more than 16 billion barrels.
  I am going to go into this a little bit more because it is something 
that constantly comes up, because it is something that was coined by 
the extreme environmental community that is opposed to this: a 6-month 
supply. Let's look at this on an average. The average would be Prudhoe 
Bay.
  We have some pictures of Prudhoe Bay here. You can see the oilfield 
over there; it is the largest oilfield ever found in North America. It 
was supposed to produce 10 billion barrels and

[[Page 23628]]

it is almost to its 13 billionth barrel now. That has been supplying 
the Nation with about 20 percent of its total crude oil for the last 27 
years. So it is very significant.
  Here is ANWR over here. There is Kaktovik, the village you have seen 
the pictures of. Then there is the makeup of just what is ANWR. I have 
told people time and time again, it is a big hunk of real estate. It is 
19 million acres in its entirety. The entire State of Alaska is about 
365 million acres.
  What we have done is, we have done a little comparison for you to 
show you that ANWR and South Carolina are about the same size. The only 
difference in the ANWR 19 million acres, we set aside 8.5 million acres 
as a wilderness in perpetuity. Those are not going to be touched. Nor 
is the balance of the refuge in the darker yellow. Only the green area 
is proposed for lease sale. In the House bill before us, the footprint 
is limited to 2,000 acres. That is the little square you see up in red.
  That is the proportion. You have the pipeline already in, the 800-
mile pipeline. The same arguments that were used in the 1970s against 
the pipeline and the late 1960s are prevailing today. We built that 
pipeline. It is one of the construction wonders of the world. It has 
moved 20, 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country.
  I know there are some who have, simply, a closed mind to this issue 
because they made a commitment to America's environmental community. It 
is our job to make a commitment to do what is right for America, and 
what is right for America is to reduce our dependence on imported oil. 
You do it one way. You do it by producing more domestically.
  You can talk all you want about energy savings, the world moves on 
oil. You don't drive out of here on hot air. You don't fly out of here 
on hot air. Your ships and your trains don't move out on hot air. They 
move on oil. I wish we had another alternative, but we do not.
  We can talk about coal. We can talk about natural gas. We can talk 
about nuclear and we can make our points, but the world moves on oil 
and we are going to continue moving on oil for some time in the future. 
That is why it is so important that we develop, here in the United 
States, an additional supply of significance.
  Don't tell me about a 6-month supply because, if you do, you are 
doing a disservice, not only to your other colleagues but to yourself 
because you are kidding yourself.
  If there is no oil there, believe me, it is not going to be 
developed. There is no consideration for the Native people's rights. I 
talked about that earlier this morning. That distresses me because they 
are my constituents. They have every right as American citizens to 
control their land and develop their land, and they can't even drill 
for gas to heat their homes.
  Some say we are rushing through this too fast. We have had hearings. 
Here is the history. Between the 100th and 107th Congresses--this has 
been around for a long time--there have been over 50 bills regarding 
this topic, there have been 60 hearings, there have been 5 markups.
  Legislation authorizing the opening of ANWR passed the Senate once 
already--in 1995. Legislation authorizing the opening of ANWR passed 
the House twice already. The conference report authorizing the opening 
of ANWR passed the Congress back in 1995. It passed the Senate. But, 
unfortunately, President Clinton vetoed it. If we had passed it in 
1995, it could very well be producing oil.
  Something that should lie in the minds of all Americans is that we 
are starting to lose lives over oil. We lost two U.S. Navy sailors 
because a ship sank while being inspected by the Navy. It was sailing 
out of Iraq filled with illegal oil that had gotten beyond the 
oversight of the U.N. inspectors. The sailors were on that vessel 
inspecting it, and the ship sank.
  The point is this: Had this particular legislation not been vetoed by 
the President in 1995, I am sure we would have had a different 
situation relative to the situation we see currently in Iraq. I will 
talk about that a little later.
  In any event, to suggest this thing be given further study, that is a 
cop-out. We have been at this. We have had hearings. I know the 
occupant of the chair has been on the committee. This has been under 
discussion. The obvious road block here is the refusal of the 
Democratic leadership to allow us to vote it out of committee and to 
have an up-or-down vote in the committee. They took way the authority 
of Chairman Bingaman and rested it with the majority leader. They do 
not have a bill yet. Maybe they will have a bill in a day or two, with 
little or no Republican input. This has become a very partisan issue.
  It is similar to what happened on the Finance Committee with the 
stimulus bill. We had no input, and suddenly we went to markup and to 
voting the bill out and found it was so partisan that we had to start 
the process again.
  I don't know what the majority leader's objective is in delaying. But 
we finally have this up before this body. Again, I am distressed with 
the manner in which we are forced to tie ourselves in on railroad 
retirement. That should be a separate bill. Nevertheless, we have to 
take what we can get around here. When you are a small State with a 
small population, you don't have a large House membership. As you know, 
we only have one House Member.
  Some of the comments from my friend, Senator Lieberman, this morning, 
about this being an insignificant amount of oil--let me tell you that 
the estimated 10 billion barrels of oil coming out of ANWR would 
support his State of Connecticut for 126\1/2\ years based on the 
current petroleum needs of about 216,000 barrels a day. From the 
standpoint of South Dakota, it would provide oil for South Dakota for 
460 years.
  We can all throw statistics around. Nevertheless, it is frustrating 
when there are suggestions that this is a meaningless, insignificant 
potential and not worth disturbing what they call the Serengeti of the 
Arctic.
  Let me comment a little bit on some of the claims by the Senator from 
Connecticut that we are rushing through the ANWR process. As I 
indicated, nothing could be further from the truth.
  A conference report authorizing the opening of ANWR passed the 
Congress in 1995. Reviewing the history shows that ANWR has not only 
been addressed by this body but it has also been addressed by various 
agencies of the Department of the Interior, the House of 
Representatives. The proposal has been before Congress for 14 years.
  The time to act is long overdue. The issue has been dragged out long 
enough over the years. I think both sides know what is happening to us 
with the vulnerability associated with our increased dependence.
  I have some charts that show the actual increase in consumption.
  Here is the reality of U.S. petroleum consumption from January 1990 
to September 1999. You can see that we are currently at a little over 
20 million barrels a day in consumption. We can conserve more. If you 
want a high-mileage car, you can buy it. Any American can choose, 
through their own free will, cars that are more comfortable or cars 
that can handle more people.
  We have some other charts I want to bring up.
  This is where our imports come from--from the OPEC nations: Saudi 
Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela, and Nigeria. We are importing currently about 
56 percent of our total crude oil. I think we have another chart that 
shows just where we have been. In 1997, we were importing 37 percent. 
We were importing 56 percent in 2001. The Department of Energy 
estimates that we will import 66 percent by the year 2010.
  What does that do to our national security? I will get into that a 
little later. Clearly, it is an issue that should be addressed.
  Another issue is that of jobs. I have always believed that if anybody 
in this body could identify a singular more important stimulus than 
opening up ANWR, I would certainly like to hear from them. That offer 
is still out there because I haven't heard from them.
  To give us some idea specifically of what would be initiated by 
opening

[[Page 23629]]

this Coastal Plain, the development scenario can only take place on 
2,000 acres. That is what is in the bill. That is what is in H.R. 4.
  Let's talk a little bit about the realization that we are likely to 
get somewhere between 5.6 and 16 billion barrels a day and what it is 
going to do for jobs. This is a jobs issue.
  First of all, the area has to be leased. It is Federal land. There 
would be a lease proposal. The estimate of the bids that would come in 
by the major oil companies, such as Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, or Phillips 
Petroleum, and others would be somewhere in the area of $3 billion. The 
taxpayers would obviously see a generation of funds coming from the 
private sales and going into the general fund.
  Let's talk about jobs.
  There was a generalization made by Senator Lieberman that the jobs 
issue is insignificant because more jobs could be created, if you will, 
by energy conservation. I wish that were true. I wish we could justify 
that with some statistical information to prove it, because we are 
talking about continued dependence on imported oil and how we can 
relieve that. We are not talking about energy as a whole.
  There are various studies we have seen over the years. According to 
the Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Association, ANWR development 
should produce 735,000 jobs in all 50 States. Why? Because we do not 
make valves; we don't make insulation. These things are made in various 
States in the United States.
  In a different study, the U.S. Department of Energy estimated ANWR 
will produce 250,000 full-time jobs in America. Interestingly enough, 
this study was contracted out to a Massachusetts firm. This is 
something of which the junior Senator from Massachusetts should take 
note. Let me repeat--he was here earlier; unfortunately, he is not in 
the Chamber now--a firm in his own State has estimated at least 250,000 
jobs will be produced. I am not sure he is aware of that. And this 
contract was given to a Massachusetts firm.
  Opponents of drilling in ANWR try to downplay these arguments and try 
to argue the lower numbers. But regardless of whether it is 250,000 or 
735,000, either way, it would still be a step in the right direction as 
far as stimulus to the economy because where else can you find another 
issue that will employ somewhere between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs and 
does not cost the taxpayers one red cent. And it keeps the jobs here at 
home rather than sending our dollars overseas and importing the oil. 
Every single new job in this country is important, particularly at a 
time when we have a recession and a downturn.
  As a consequence, I think it is important to note that those who know 
a lot about job creation wholeheartedly support drilling in ANWR. I am 
talking about the unions, such as the maritime unions, the Teamsters, 
the seafarers, and various others.
  The North Slope oil fields have already significantly contributed 
more than $300 billion to the U.S. economy.
  If we go through some recent announcements, let me tell you the 
significance of a couple hundred thousand jobs.
  On November 29, it was announced 1,409 jobs may be lost. IBM 
announced 1,000 layoffs.
  On November 28, it was announced 850 jobs may be lost. Ames 
Department Stores announced they will close a distribution center in 
Ohio, which jeopardized 450 jobs.
  I could give you a list of the various announced job cuts.
  Alcoa plans to lay off 6,500 employees and close plants.
  Chevron announced 550 more job cuts.
  Every day we have seen news clips to this effect. So we should be 
very concerned about stimulating the American economy and generating 
jobs in the private sector. And this is one of the best ways to do it.
  My friend, the Senator from Oregon, is the Presiding Officer. I know 
the activity associated with Alaska's oilfields has traditionally been 
important to Oregon, particularly to the shipyards there.
  It is estimated by the American Petroleum Institute that 19 new 
double-hull tankers will be needed if ANWR is opened. All U.S. ships 
will have to be built at U.S. shipyards and carry the American flag. 
The analysis predicts that the construction of these tankers will boost 
the economy of America by producing more jobs in the shipyards. They 
indicate that the new tankers will be needed solely because the old 
North Slope tankers are being phased out by 2015 because of the double-
hull tanker requirements.
  So more American jobs will be created because the Jones Act requires 
that the oil that is transported within the United States--namely, my 
State of Alaska down to either Washington or California; but in 
Portland there is a large shipyard that has accommodated these ships 
before--must be transported by tankers by U.S.-flagged vessels built in 
the United States. The analysis correctly assumes that if ANWR passes, 
it will include an oil export ban. So there will be a provision that 
this oil cannot be exported. It also assumes that the ANWR oil will be 
transported by tankers to refineries in Washington, California, and 
Hawaii. The Oregon area ordinarily does not have the refining capacity.
  The American Petroleum Institute estimates this would pump $4 billion 
almost directly into the U.S. economy and would create 2,000 
construction jobs in the U.S. shipbuilding industry and approximately 
3,000 other jobs.
  The API predicts this would compute to more than ``90,000 job-
years,'' by estimating that it will take almost 5,000 employees 
approximately 17 years to build the ships necessary to transport this 
oil.
  They predict one ship must be built each year for 17 years in order 
to coincide with the schedule for retiring the existing tankers.
  To me, this sounds like stimulus. It sounds like a stimulus for 
creating jobs in shipyards, many of which have been hurting for some 
time.
  Another issue is the alleged opposition by Gwich'ins. Most of the 
Gwich'ins, we know, live in Canada. I am aware some of them live in the 
Arctic village areas, with a population of roughly 117 people. They 
fear that the caribou that they depend on for subsistence will be 
decimated. They fear the caribou might take a different migration 
drive, perhaps further from their village; that it would be harder for 
them to hunt the 300 to 350 they kill each year.
  But, first, there is no evidence that the oil development--with the 
strict controls proposed to prevent disruption during the June-July 
calving season of the Arctic Porcupine herd, to reduce noise, and to 
control surface effects--will harm the herd.
  I have a picture in the Chamber that shows some caribou activity in 
Prudhoe Bay. I will give you a comparison. Experience over the past 26 
years in Prudhoe Bay, where the herd has more than tripled in size and 
where the caribou calves----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alaska in morning 
business has expired.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I request as much time as I need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, as I announced earlier 
today, we need to complete our business by 1:15 today because of the 
problem at the Dirksen Building. The majority leader wishes to give a 
presentation prior to that time. So if the Senator would maybe take 
another 10 minutes, would that be appropriate?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We are in morning business, and the limitation of time 
in morning business is what?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The limitation is 10 minutes for each Senator 
in morning business.
  Mr. REID. I know you just barely exceeded that.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We were talking about 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Yes, we did 15, that is right.
  I see Senator Baucus, who wishes to give a statement, is in the 
Chamber.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I was under the impression we would have plenty of 
opportunity to discuss this today. Might I inquire when we are coming 
in Monday?

[[Page 23630]]


  Mr. REID. We can come in as early as you would like. Two o'clock.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. How about 1 o'clock?
  Mr. REID. Would you need more time on Monday than that?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. One o'clock would be agreeable because what you are 
telling me now is basically that I am out of time for today.
  Mr. REID. Yes. Right. I would be happy to talk to the majority 
leader. I am sure we could work that out.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am a little disappointed because I think we are 
being kind of squeezed on time on this issue.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Alaska, if you want to come in 
earlier than 1 o'clock, I would be happy to talk to him. We are not 
trying to squeeze out anybody. They are closing the Dirksen Building.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Dirksen Building will be closed at 4 o'clock?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Why don't we come in at noon?
  Mr. REID. I will do my best. We will do our best. We have presiders, 
and all that. We will come in earlier than 2 o'clock, for sure.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for another 10 minutes.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. REID. I think that will be fine. I say to my friend from Alaska, 
we certainly are not trying to cut off anybody's right. I don't know 
how much time the Senator has had, but quite a bit. I understand how 
fervently he feels and how important this is to the State of Alaska, so 
we want to make sure that you have all the time you need prior to our 
voting at 5 o'clock on Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. My understanding is, they will do their best to try to 
see that we come in at noon. I thank the Chair and thank the majority 
whip.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have talked a little bit this morning about the 
``Serengeti.'' Let me tell you where the ``Serengeti'' of Alaska is. It 
is another area where all the lakes are, and it is hardly a 
``Serengeti'' because the Coastal Plain is all the same.
  But if you look over at the naval petroleum reserve, that is the area 
with all the lakes with the concentration of birds. It is not within 
the 1002 area. That is another misleading argument that is continually 
thrown out.
  The other one is that it will take as long as 10 years before ANWR 
oil is flowing. What they forget is the realization that we already 
have a good deal of the infrastructure. We have the pipeline. We only 
need a 70-mile line from the coastal area into the pipeline. And it is 
suggested once the leases are put up for sale, they will have 
construction activity in about 18 months.
  But more important is the national situation. I am going to close 
with a reference to that because I think it deserves more of a 
recognition because of the sensitivity of where we are internationally.
  We are importing a little over a million barrels a day from Saddam 
Hussein. There is no question that there is a great deal of concern as 
a consequence of the relationship we have had with Saddam Hussein. We 
fought a war not so long ago. It is kind of interesting to reflect on 
some of the particulars associated with what happens when we become so 
dependent. We have heard Saddam Hussein in every speech saying ``death 
to America.'' He also says ``death to Israel,'' one of our greatest 
allies over there. Recognizing that he can generate a substantial cash 
flow by our continued dependence, one wonders why it is in the national 
interest of our country to allow ourselves to be become so dependent on 
that source.
  I also wish to highlight an article excerpted from the Wall Street 
Journal of November 28, which kind of sets, unfortunately, the partisan 
setting this matter is in. I will read from it. It is entitled 
``President Daschle.''

       One of the more amusing Washington themes of late has been 
     the alleged revival of the Imperial Presidency, with George 
     W. Bush said to be wielding vast, unprecedented powers. Too 
     bad no one seems to have let Senate Majority Leader Tom 
     Daschle in on this secret.
       Because from where we sit Mr. Daschle is the politician 
     wielding by far the most Beltway clout, and in spectacularly 
     partisan fashion. The South Dakotan's political strategy is 
     obvious if cynical: He's wrapping his arms tight around a 
     popular President on the war and foreign policy, but on the 
     domestic front he's conducting his own guerrilla war against 
     Mr. Bush, blocking the President's agenda at every turn. And 
     so far he's getting away with it.
       Mr. Bush has asked Congress to pass three main items before 
     it adjourns for the year: Trade promotion authority, and 
     energy and economic stimulus bills. Mr. Daschle has so far 
     refused to negotiate on any of them, and on two he won't even 
     allow votes. Instead he is moving ahead with a farm bill the 
     White House opposes, and a railroad retirement bill that is 
     vital to no one but the AFL-CIO.
       Just yesterday Mr. Daschle announced that ``I don't know 
     that we'll have the opportunity'' to call up an energy bill 
     until next year. One might think that after September 11 U.S. 
     energy production would be a war priority. In September alone 
     the U.S. imported 1.2 million barrels of oil a day.

  This is at a time when we were being terrorized in New York and at 
the Pentagon.
  Furthermore, on the 1.2 million barrels of oil a day we are getting 
from Iraq, whom we soon may be fighting--imagine that, fighting Iraq 
and we are talking about not passing an energy bill--the 1.2 million 
barrels per month is the highest rate of imports since before Saddam 
Hussein invaded Kuwait.
  Continuing from the article:
       But Mr. Daschle is blocking a vote precisely because he 
     knows Alaskan oil drilling has the votes to pass; earlier 
     this autumn he pulled the bill from Senator Jeff Bingaman's 
     Energy Committee when he saw it had the votes. So much for 
     the new spirit of Beltway cooperation.
       We're not so naive as to think that war will, or should, 
     end partisan disagreement. But what's striking now is that 
     Mr. Daschle is letting his liberal Old Bulls break even the 
     agreements they've already made with the White House. Mr. 
     Bush shook hands weeks ago on an Oval Office education deal 
     with Teddy Kennedy, but now we hear that Mr. Kennedy wants 
     even more spending before he'll sign on. Mr. Daschle is 
     letting Ted have his way.
       The same goes for the $686 billion annual spending limit 
     that Democrats struck with Mr. Bush after September 11.

  I will not refer to the rest of the article, but it simply says that 
what we are seeing here is a conscious effort by the majority not to 
allow us to have a clean up-or-down vote on the issue.
  As we wind up today's debate, I encourage my colleagues to think a 
little bit about their obligation on these votes. Is it their 
obligation to respond to the extreme environmental community that has 
lobbied this so hard, that regards this as an issue to milk with all 
the authorities, somewhat like a cash cow, and are going to continue to 
use it? This bill covers reducing the demand, increasing the supply, 
and it enhances infrastructure and energy security.
  I ask unanimous consent that the article in the Wall Street Journal 
of November 28 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           President Daschle

       One of the more amusing Washington themes of late has been 
     the alleged revival of the Imperial Presidency, with George 
     W. Bush said to be wielding vast, unprecedented powers. Too 
     bad no one seems to have let Senate Majority Leader Tom 
     Daschle in on this secret.
       Because from where we sit Mr. Daschle is the politician 
     wielding by far the most Beltway clout, and in spectacularly 
     partisan fashion. The South Dakotan's political strategy is 
     obvious if cynical: He's wrapping his arms tight around a 
     popular President on the war and foreign policy, but on the 
     domestic front he's conducting his own guerrilla war against 
     Mr. Bush, blocking the President's agenda at every turn. And 
     so far he's getting away with it.
       Mr. Bush has asked Congress to pass three main items before 
     it adjourns for the year: Trade promotion authority, and 
     energy and economic stimulus bills. Mr. Daschle has so far 
     refused to negotiate on any of them, and on two he won't even 
     allow votes. Instead he is moving ahead with a farm bill (see 
     below) the White House opposes, and a railroad retirement 
     bill that is vital to no one but the AFL-CIO.
       Just yesterday Mr. Daschle announced that ``I don't know 
     that we'll have the opportunity'' to call up an energy bill 
     until next year. One might think that after September 11 U.S. 
     energy production would be a war priority. In September alone 
     the U.S. imported

[[Page 23631]]

     1.2 million barrels of oil a day from Iraq, which we soon may 
     be fighting, the highest rate since just before Saddam 
     Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990.
       But Mr. Daschle is blocking a vote precisely because he 
     knows Alaskan oil drilling has the votes to pass; earlier 
     this autumn he pulled the bill from Senator Jeff Bingaman's 
     Energy Committee when he saw it had the votes. So much for 
     the new spirit of Beltway cooperation.
       We're not so naive as to think that war will, or should, 
     end partisan disagreement. But what's striking now is that 
     Mr. Daschle is letting his liberal Old Bulls break even the 
     agreements they've already made with the White House. Mr. 
     Bush shook hands weeks ago on an Oval Office education deal 
     with Teddy Kennedy, but now we hear that Mr. Kennedy wants 
     even more spending before he'll sign on. Mr. Daschle is 
     letting Ted have his way.
       The same goes for the $686 billion annual spending limit 
     that Democrats struck with Mr. Bush after September 11. 
     That's a 7% increase from a year earlier (since padded by a 
     $40 billion bipartisan addition), and Democrats made a public 
     fanfare that Mr. Bush had endorsed this for fear some 
     Republicans might use it against them in next year's 
     elections. But now Mr. Daschle is using the issue against Mr. 
     Bush, refusing to even discuss an economic stimulus bill 
     unless West Virginia Democrat Bob Byrd gets his demand for 
     another $15 billion in domestic spending.
       Mr. Byrd, a former majority leader who thinks of Mr. 
     Daschle as his junior partner, may even attach his wish list 
     to the Defense spending bill. That would force Mr. Bush to 
     either veto and forfeit much needed money for defense, or 
     sign it and swallow Mr. Byrd's megapork for Amtrak and 
     Alaskan airport subsidies.
       All of this adds to the suspicion that Mr. Daschle is only 
     too happy to see no stimulus bill at all. He knows the party 
     holding the White House usually gets most of the blame for a 
     bad economy, so his Democrats can pad their Senate majority 
     next year by blaming Republicans. This is the same strategy 
     that former Democratic leader George Mitchell pursued in 
     blocking a tax cut during the early 1990s and then blaming 
     George H.W. Bush for the recession. Mr. Mitchell's 
     consigliere at the time? Tom Daschle.
       It is certainly true that Republicans have often helped Mr. 
     Daschle's guerrilla campaign. Alaska's Ted Stevens is Bob 
     Byrd's bosom spending buddy; he's pounded White House budget 
     director Mitch Daniels for daring to speak the truth about 
     his pork. And GOP leader Trent Lott contributed to the 
     airline-security rout by letting his Members run for cover.
       The issue now is whether Mr. Bush will continue to let 
     himself get pushed around. Mr. Daschle is behaving badly 
     because he's assumed the President won't challenge him for 
     fear of losing bipartisan support on the war. But this makes 
     no political sense: As long as Mr. Bush's war management is 
     popular, Mr. Daschle isn't about to challenge him on foreign 
     affairs.
       The greater risk to Mr. Bush's popularity and success isn't 
     from clashing with the Daschle Democrats over tax cuts or oil 
     drilling. It's from giving the impression that on everything 
     but the war, Tom Daschle might as well be President.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill, 
which is H.R. 4, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Summary--H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001

       H.R. 4 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 
     reduces energy demand, increases energy supply, and enhances 
     our energy infrastructure and energy security.


                             Reduced Demand

       Reauthorizes federal energy conservation programs and 
     directs the federal government to take leadership in energy 
     conservation with new energy savings goals.
       Expands Federal Energy Savings Performance Contracting 
     authority.
       Increases Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 
     (LIHEAP), Weatherization and State Energy Program 
     authorization levels to meet needs of low-income Americans.
       Expands the EPA/DOE Energy Star program and directs the EPA 
     and DOE to determine whether Energy Star label should extend 
     to additional products.
       Directs DOE to set standards for appliance ``standby mode'' 
     energy use.
       Reduces light truck fuel consumption by 5 billion gallons 
     over six years.
       Improves Federal fleet fuel economy, expands use of hybrid 
     vehicles.
       Increases funding for DOE's energy conservation and energy 
     efficiency R&D programs.
       Expands HUD programs to promote energy efficient single and 
     multi-family housing.


                            Increased Supply

       Provides for environmentally-sensitive oil and gas 
     exploration on Arctic Coastal Plain.
       Authorizes new oil and gas R&D for unconventional and 
     ultra-deepwater production.
       Royalty relief incentives for deepwater leases in the 
     central and western gulf of Mexico.
       Streamlines administration of oil and gas leases on Federal 
     lands.
       Authorizes DOE to develop accelerated Clean Coal Power 
     Initiative.
       Establishes alternative fuel vehicle and Green School Bus 
     demonstration programs.
       Reduces royalty rate for development of geothermal energy 
     and expedites leasing.
       Provides for regular assessment of renewable energy 
     resources and impediments to use.
       Streamlines licensing process for hydroelectric dams and 
     encourages increased output.
       Provides new authorization for fossil, nuclear, hydrogen, 
     biomass, and renewable R&D.


                Enhanced Infrastructure Energy Security

       Sets goals for reduction of U.S. dependence on foreign oil 
     and Iraqi oil imports.
       Initiates review of existing rights-of-ways and federal 
     lands for energy potential.
       Directs DOE to implement R&D and demonstrate use of 
     distributed energy resources.
       Invests in new transmission infrastructure R&D program to 
     ensure reliable electricity.
       Requires study of boutique fuel issues to minimize refinery 
     bottlenecks, supply shortages.
       Initiates study of potential for renewable transportation 
     fuels to displace oil imports.
       Offers scholarships to train the next generation of energy 
     workers.
       Prohibits pipelines from being placed on national register 
     of historic places.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Finally, I hope as Members reflect on their 
responsibility, they recognize that we are at war. This war may expand 
and extend itself. The continued exposure based on our dependence on 
imported oil and the likelihood that the flow of oil imports might be 
disrupted mandates that we have an energy policy and that we have it 
done in a timely manner. Let's recognize the obligation that we have in 
voting on this. Is it a vote to respond to the demands of America's 
environmental community, or is it a vote to do what is right for 
America?
  We have already lost two sailors as a consequence of our dependence 
on oil from Iraq. I don't want to stand before this body and say I told 
you so, but if we don't pass an energy bill that will reduce our 
dependence on Iraqi oil, we are doing our country a grave injustice. It 
is contrary to the majority of public opinion in this country. Seventy-
six percent of public say we should be taking up and passing an energy 
bill over any other bill. That includes the farm bill and the Railroad 
Retirement Act. If we ever get to the stimulus, I hope somebody would 
search their minds and memories to see if they can come up with a 
better stimulus than the proposal associated withholding up ANWR.
  I am somewhat disappointed we were not able to have more time today. 
Hopefully, the leadership can work out coming in at noon on Monday.
  I thank the Chair for its courtesy. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________