[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4469-4471]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            THE ENERGY BILL

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The purpose of addressing my colleagues today is to 
talk a little bit about the energy bill. As most Members know, a 
bipartisan bill was introduced by Senator Breaux and myself some time 
ago. It was a very comprehensive energy bill. It covered all aspects of 
renewables, alternatives, conservation, and also went into what we 
think is very important, and that is the issue of supply because what 
we have in this country--and it is certainly evident in California and 
moving out to New York and other areas--is we have increased 
consumption. In other words, we increased demand but we have not 
increased the supply.
  This particular bill attempts to not only, in the sense of 
renewables, encourage alternatives and conservation, but it addresses 
how we can go back to our conventional sources of energy and try to do 
a more efficient job of ensuring that they, too, continue to contribute 
to our needs.
  That sounds simplistic in one sense, but in another it should be 
recognized we have not been able to build a new coal-fired plant in the 
United States since the mid-1990s. It is not that we do not have the 
coal or the method of transporting the coal; it is simply a matter of 
permitting and the difficulties associated with meeting air quality and 
the costs associated with the particular type of construction required 
to meet the new emission standards.
  We have not built a new nuclear plant in this country in over 25 
years. Nobody in their right mind would even approach the subject 
because of, first, permitting, but probably even more pertinent is the 
difficulty of what we do with the high level radioactive wastes. We 
have been working out in Nevada for the last decade building a 
repository that is still 6 to 8 years away, even though it is basically 
complete today. The permitting is taking that long. It is at Yucca 
Mountain. We have expended over $7 billion.
  My point is simple. As we address our conventional sources, we find 
we have eliminated them for one reason or another simply because we 
have not had the conviction to overcome the objections by some groups 
that do not want to see nuclear and they do not want to see coal. It is 
pretty hard to identify what their contribution is to the recognition 
that we are short of supply.
  You can go on into hydro, which is renewable, but nevertheless there 
are those who propose to take down hydro dams in our rivers. Out west, 
if you take down the dams, you close the rivers to navigation. Then 
where do you put the tonnage that goes on the rivers? You put it on the 
highways.
  We have also seen a tremendous increase in natural gas consumption 
because that is the one area that our electric producing entities can 
permit. Nevertheless, we have seen gas prices go from $2.16 per 
thousand cubic feet last year to somewhere in the area of $5.40 or 
$8.40 or whatever--it has doubled; it has tripled. The realization now 
is we are pulling down our recoverable gas reserves faster than we are 
finding new ones.
  I am not suggesting we don't have more gas in this country, but we 
have pretty much identified natural gas as the preferred fuel. Now we 
are finding ourselves faced with higher prices associated with that.
  I have kept oil for the last provision in our dependence because I 
think it reflects on a little different portion of energy. America 
moves on oil. We do not move necessarily on natural gas. Our industry 
depends on natural gas, our power generating on natural gas, our homes 
by natural gas, but you don't fly out of Washington, DC, on hot air. 
You fly out on kerosene in your jet airplane, your bus, your ship. 
Unfortunately, we have little relief in sight from the standpoint of 
our dependence being replaced by any other technology.
  We talk about fuel cells; we talk about wind, solar panels. We have 
expended about $6 billion over the last 5 years developing alternative 
energy. While that development has made some progress, the unfortunate 
part is it still only reflects about 4 percent of our overall general 
mix in energy sources.
  What we have attempted to do in our bill, Senator Breaux and myself, 
is to concentrate to a large degree on increasing the supply by using 
technology to develop more efficiently, more effectively, with smaller 
footprints.
  We have also had a bill that has been introduced. I would classify 
this at least initially as a partisan bill introduced by my good friend 
Senator Bingaman, with whom I share responsibility on Energy, as 
chairman of the committee--he is the ranking member--and Senator 
Daschle. They introduced a partisan bill. The rationale behind many of 
our initiatives is similar. In the area of tax initiatives, they are 
nearly identical. Both have marginal wells, energy efficiency, 
renewable, accelerating depreciation, infrastructure, other nontax 
provisions, electric reliability, and Price Anderson issues that 
address liability on nuclear plants, and alternative fuels.
  However, there are some significant differences. I would like to 
point those out at this time.
  There is very little in this bill about existing older coal-fired 
plants that generate a significant portion of the energy in this 
country in the form of electricity.
  There is nothing substantial for nuclear. I have indicated that 
nuclear energy provides about 20 percent of the power in this Nation. 
It is clean. It has no emissions.
  As a consequence, more and more utilities are looking at American 
nuclear. But clearly we have to address the waste issue.
  There is no expedited procedure in the Democratic bill for hydro 
relicensing, which we think is a necessity, because in the interest of 
safety and efficiency hydro dams need to be relicensed in an 
expeditious manner.
  Lastly, they have not included opening up ANWR--that small sliver of 
Alaska that we believe has the potential to decrease, if you will, 
substantially our dependence on imported oil. It will not replace it. I 
want to make sure everybody recognizes that. It is not the answer to 
California's energy problem. It never was and never will be. But it 
certainly is the answer to California's dependence on oil because all 
the oil that is produced in Alaska is consumed in California, or the 
State of Washington. Oregon has no refineries. So a portion of the oil 
from Washington's and California's refineries go to Oregon.
  My point is a simple one. As Alaska's oil production declines, 
California, Washington, and Oregon will continue to need oil.
  The question is, Where are they going to get the oil? They are going 
to bring it in from overseas in foreign vessels, maybe from the rain 
forests of Colombia or other areas where there is no environmental 
consideration given for the development of the field, or compatibility 
of the environment, or compatibility of the landmass where they develop 
oil, or for the technology that we mandate in developing our own oil 
fields.

[[Page 4470]]

  My point is, you might not like oil fields. Prudhoe Bay is the best 
in the world, bar none. The combination of the environmental oversight 
by the Federal Government and the EPA and the State of Alaska is second 
to none. Any spill of an ounce or more has to be reported. Any foreign 
substance--even throwing out coffee from a cup--requires reporting. 
That may sound outlandish, but that is the rule. That is the law, and 
that is the enforcement.
  As we look at the decline in production from Alaska and recognize 
where it is going, and factoring in the reality that our oil under the 
Jones Act, which mandates that the carriage of goods between two 
American ports must be in U.S. flag vessels that are crewed by union 
members, that are in ships built in U.S. yards, which provides jobs for 
Americans as opposed to foreign ships that are coming in that aren't 
built to U.S. standards and don't have the same requirements of Coast 
Guard inspections, and so forth.
  There is a significant issue for Washington, Oregon, and California.
  The merits of opening ANWR speak for themselves. Can you do it 
safely? Clearly we can. We have the experience. Is the area at risk? 
Well, those who are opposed to it would have you believe that ANWR is 
at risk. But they do not point out the reality that ANWR is the size of 
the State of South Carolina. It is roughly 19 million acres. In that 19 
million acres, we have set aside 8.5 million acres in the wilderness in 
perpetuity and another 9 million acres has been set aside in the 
refuge, leaving up at the top for Congress and only Congress to 
determine what is the so-called 1002 area consisting of 1.5 million 
acres.
  That is what is at risk--1.5 million acres out of 19 million acres. 
And industry says if oil is found there in the range that it believes 
exist--somewhere between 5.6 billion barrels and 16 billion barrels--
the footprint would be about 1,000, or 2,000 acres.
  That is about half the size of the Dulles International Airport, to 
give you some idea of the magnitude.
  Is that permissible? We think it is. Do we have the technology? We 
think we do.
  If the oil is there in that abundance--10 million barrels a day--it 
would equal Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay has produced for 27 years about 20 
to 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in the United States. Now 
it is beginning to decline. It has, nevertheless, exceeded its 
production prediction which was 10 billion barrels. It has produced 
over 13 billion barrels.
  My point is that ANWR and that particular field that is believed to 
be there would be the largest oil field found in the world in the last 
40 years. Some people say it is only a 6-month supply. That is assuming 
all the rest of the oil production stops. It is a ridiculous argument. 
It is similar to us saying that Alaska is going to withhold development 
of ANWR, and therefore you are not going to have a 6-month supply of 
oil. It is a ridiculous argument. It needs to be tossed aside. It is 
amazing that the media believes it is going to take 10 years to 
develop. It is not going to be 10 years. We can develop that in 3 
years. We already have an 800-mile pipeline. It utilizes half the 
capacity. We need an extension of about 26 miles of pipeline, which 
takes us from the field on State land on the edge of ANWR, and we can 
begin to produce oil.
  The difficulty I have with the Democratic bill is ANWR is not in it. 
I think as we look at trying to find relief, we have to look at home, 
and we have to recognize that we can do it safely. I have already 
indicated prominent justification for that.
  The other issue is what is going on with the economy. The economy in 
this country is in the dumps. How much of it is the cost, if you will, 
of increased energy? Look at Fortune 500 fourth-quarter earnings. They 
all indicate that they were substantially affected by the increased 
costs of energy. It affected their bottom line. It affected their 
employment. It affected their inventory.
  Again, it is an economic factor, and it is a significant one as we 
look at the contribution that this could make in our own economy. It is 
a significant creator of jobs.
  There are virtually thousands and thousands of jobs associated with 
opening up this oil field. We don't make pipe in Alaska. We don't make 
valves. We don't have the welders. It is estimated that about 750,000 
jobs are associated with this effort.
  I want to make sure everybody understands the significance of what it 
means to the economy.
  Finally, the national security interests of this country: when do we 
compromise our national security? At what point do we become so 
dependent on oil imports that we compromise that?
  I was asked that question. I said, well, remember in 1973 and 1974 
when we had the oil embargo. We had gas lines around the block. People 
were indignant, and they were blaming government. We said we will never 
approach 50-percent dependence.
  So we created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with a 90-day supply. 
We never reached that goal. We reached about a 56-day supply. When we 
pulled our oil out under the previous administration--about 30 million 
barrels--we suddenly found that we didn't have the refining capacity to 
refine the oil. We had to replace what we were importing by opening 
SPR.
  My point is we have restrictions in our energy situation. And it is 
not limited to supply. It is partially limited to the capacity we have 
because we haven't built a new refinery in this country in 25 years. We 
shut down nearly 100 in the last decade.
  Here we find ourselves in a situation where we fought a war in 1991. 
We lost 147 lives. We had 437 Americans wounded. How quickly we forget. 
Who was that war against? It was against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. We 
are now importing nearly 700,000 barrels a day from Iraq. Yet we have 
flown 234,000 individual sorties over Iraq enforcing the no-fly zone. 
We have been very fortunate. We have not lost any men or women. But 
they are shot at, believe me. It is a very dangerous situation.
  So here we become dependent, if you will, in a few years, to a 
degree, on oil from an aggressor, a tyrant. It is kind of interesting 
to proceed a little further with this evaluation of our national 
security interests. Because, as we look to Saddam Hussein, what we do 
is we take his oil, we refine it, put it in our airplanes and go bomb 
him. Maybe it is not that simple, but I think there is justification 
for at least that kind of a premise being rationalized.
  What does he do with the money he gets? He pays his Republican Guards 
to keep him alive. And then he develops a missile capability, a 
delivery capability, a significant biological capability. And at whom 
does he aim it? At one of our closest allies, Israel. I don't know what 
that does to your digestion, Mr. President, but it bothers mine.
  Is it in our country's national security interest to continue to 
depend more and more on imported oil? I do not think so. We can reduce 
that dramatically. Currently we are 56-percent dependent on imported 
oil. If Congress authorized the opening of ANWR tomorrow, we would send 
a signal to OPEC that we mean business about reducing our dependence. 
That would send a strong signal. I think they would increase production 
and the price would drop.
  However, we cannot seem to come to grips with this problem because of 
the environmental opposition based on emotion, not sound science, based 
on membership, pressure on members, the realization that the 
environmental community needs a cause, the realization the 
environmental community will not address its responsibility to increase 
supply, if you will.
  Why is that increase necessary? We are simply using more energy as we 
know and learn how to conserve more. We are an electronic society. We 
move on e-mails. We move on computers. We are expanding. The 
requirements associated with our structural society--including air-
conditioning--suggest we are going to continue to use more.
  They say we can conserve our way out. We can no more conserve our way 
out than we can drill our way out. We need all the sources of energy. 
We need the technology. And a significant portion, as far as oil is 
concerned, is ANWR.

[[Page 4471]]

  So that is why, as we look at the four issues--safety, yes, it can be 
done safely; the effect on the economy; the national security; and, 
most of all, the attitude of the people in Alaska--75 percent support 
it. We have Native people, Eskimos who are here in Washington, calling 
on Members saying: Hey, this is a personal issue. We live there. We 
live in the village of Kaktovik, which is in ANWR. We have a school 
there. We have a radar site there. There are 227 people who live there. 
We have a right to life and disposition on our own land and a right of 
expression.
  So when the environmentalists say, it is an untouched Serengeti, they 
are misleading the public. Most of ANWR is untouched and will always 
remain untouched. But this little segment where the people live is the 
area where the oil would be drilled.
  So we are disappointed with the Democratic bill because it does not 
include ANWR.
  I have a couple more things to say, and then I will try to wind this 
up.
  In the Democratic bill, in our opinion, there are extremely broad 
research and development authorizations on the issue of climate change 
provisions which might be dealt with better in a separate entity. We 
are all concerned about global warming and concerned about climate 
change. But the idea of drifting towards a Kyoto accord, I think most 
Members have indicated by that vote last year of 98-0 that the proposal 
before the Senate was simply unacceptable. The reason is, it would 
allow the developing nations to catch up with the developed nations 
instead of the developed nations using our technology to assist the 
developing nations in reducing their emissions.
  Finally, the Democratic proposal has an inconsistency in one sense. 
It does not address, as I have indicated, looking for oil at home; 
namely, ANWR, even though the residents of my State support it, but it 
does propose lease sale 181 in the gulf right off Florida. The 
Democratic proposal states that we should take the lead in meeting the 
energy needs using indigenous resources.
  What I am saying is the Democratic proposal opposes ANWR, which the 
State of Alaska clearly supports, but wants to force lease sale 181, 
which Florida opposes--the Governor of Florida and the people of 
Florida--which is a bit of an inconsistency. Perhaps there will be an 
explanation on it.
  They want to shut ANWR permanently, but, by the same token, they want 
to accelerate the export of Alaskan natural gas. That is kind of an 
interesting comparison because there is a difference of how we propose 
to develop Alaska's gas. They propose a section 29 tax incentive for 
production of natural gas from Alaska.
  It is interesting to reflect on what section 29 means. Section 29 is 
designed as an incentive for development of unconventional sources of 
energy, not conventional sources.
  What am I talking about? For example, overlaying Prudhoe Bay, we have 
what we call the West Sack Field. It is larger than Prudhoe Bay, but 
the oil is immersed in the sands, and the sands are in permafrost, and 
the technology of recovery is simply not in existence. The oil is 
there.
  So in our bill we have a proposed subsidy for developing that 
technology. We have, in our bill, under section 9, an incentive for 
developing biomass technology, coalbed methane technology. But 
surprisingly enough--and I do not mean to kick a gift horse in the 
mouth or the teeth or the behind or wherever --they propose this 
section 29 in Alaska's potential natural gas development.
  Under our proposal, the Alaska natural gas project would not be 
available for any type of section 29 subsidy. There is a reason for 
that. In our case, the gas has been found. We found 36 trillion cubic 
feet of gas associated with oil development in Prudhoe Bay. The 
geologists will not even get a recognition for finding a gas well. The 
emphasis was on an oil well.
  So we found this gas. We discovered it. Furthermore, we have produced 
it. We produced it by pulling it out and reinjecting it into the oil 
wells to get greater recovery. So the gas is still there. But to 
suggest that Exxon, British Petroleum, and Phillips are looking for an 
incentive--a tax incentive under section 29--I do not mean to speak out 
of school, but we are just amazed they would include a subsidy to big 
oil for a project that is already proven, already found. The technology 
is available. All we need is the transportation to get it out.
  So, once again, we see Members of Congress trying to determine what 
is in the best interests of Alaska without talking to Alaskans or 
understanding our point of view or giving us the courtesy.
  Finally, for the record, we have had long debates on this issue of 
whether or not we could open ANWR safely. We have had long debates on 
the issue of our national security interests, of the numbers of lives 
we have lost over oil.
  I remember Mark Hatfield, a very senior Member of this body, from the 
State of Oregon, saying: I would vote for ANWR any day in the world if 
it meant not sending another American soldier overseas to fight a war 
in a foreign country over oil.
  Well, the final word--and this is from Representative Ralph Hall, a 
Democrat from Texas, who said Tuesday in a speech before the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce--and I quote:

       I would drill in a cemetery if it kept my grandkids out of 
     body bags.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________