[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18531-18534]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      NEED FOR ENERGY LEGISLATION

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I said a couple weeks ago, 10 days ago, 
I was going to come to the floor once every day to talk about the 
Energy bill. I did not do that, but this is my third or fourth time.
  We are rudderless, a ship that has no capacity to guide itself, when 
it comes to energy policy. We have a bill ready to go that can steer us 
to a better future. But there are still a number of Senators who refuse 
to hear the warning bells that require our action.
  How much louder can those bells be ringing? There was a huge blackout 
in August in the East. A complete energy meltdown occurred in the West 
just a few summers ago. Oil prices are surging to record heights. 
Natural gas demands are increasing.
  Prices of coal are higher and going up. Consumers are paying beyond 
the reasonable price at the gas pump. Our critical infrastructure lacks 
adequate investment--that is, in electricity and other things that 
relate to energy, refineries. Our electricity grid has no mandatory 
reliability rules, meaning we may have blackouts again which we thought 
Americans would never have again. If we pass the bill, we will be able 
to tell them that. Efforts to increase efficiency and renewable energy 
are anemic. The list can continue for a frighteningly long time unless 
we pass the Energy bill. I am committed to the Energy bill because it 
is necessary. It is the first step we must take in order to change our 
economy's destiny.
  We can't increase domestic oil and natural gas production overnight. 
We can't snap our fingers and modernize our Nation's electric 
transmission grid. We can't expect renewable energy to appear online 
tomorrow. We can't move away from foreign oil toward a clean, hydrogen 
future all of a sudden.
  We need an energy policy plan to move us forward to reach those 
goals. We need an energy policy in place so that businesses and 
investors have regulatory certainty. We need to make having an energy 
policy a priority.
  Today, as we speak, there are events affecting our oil situation.
  OPEC has decided to up its quota. Big deal. They were already 
producing over their last quota and are still over this most recently 
announced one.
  Right now, OPEC is not in charge of how much a barrel of oil costs in 
the spot market. Why? They don't have enough capacity to weather the 
demands of the global market.
  The weather, on the other hand, can affect the market greatly.
  Hurricane Ivan is making OPEC look pretty weak. Oil prices have been 
volatile with each report of Ivan's predicted impact.
  Right now, oil prices are just over $44. This morning the U.S. 
Minerals Management Service announced that 73 percent of the Gulf of 
Mexico oil production--that is about 1.25 million barrels of oil--and 
41 percent of the gulf's gas production--about 5 billion feet of 
natural gas--have been shut in.
  The longer the storm and its aftermath lasts, the longer imports from 
Venezuela will take to get to our southern ports. If refineries are 
shut down in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana due to Ivan, a 5-to-7-
day delay in products getting to the market could occur.
  The warning bells are ringing. We are living on the bleeding edge of 
supply and demand for oil, natural gas, coal, and renewable fuels. 
Let's get off the edge of this cliff and focus on achieving some energy 
security.
  Instead of wringing our hands at each crisis and passing political 
blame around, we need to work together to get an energy policy in 
place. We have such a policy ready for action. It is called the energy 
bill. If the Democrats would agree to limit the number of amendments to 
about 10, we can pass this much-needed legislation. If they will not 
agree, then I want the American people to know for whom the bell tolls. 
It tolls for those that refuse to come to the floor and get this energy 
bill done.
  Let's get to work and pass it.
  I am quite surprised that when Members come to the floor of the 
Senate and talk about jobs, about growth, about competition, that they 
are not talking about energy. But they are not.
  We have Hurricane Ivan, which makes OPEC look very weak. Oil prices 
have become very volatile, and the hurricanes, including ``Ivan the 
Terrible,'' are causing us to shut in huge amounts of oil all over the 
coastal areas because

[[Page 18532]]

they can't leave those deep wells open in the wake of the hurricane. So 
they are creating another big uncertainty. I don't want to make it 
sound like I am only worried about energy and hurricanes; I just want 
to state the facts.
  While we do that, I want to say that all of us, whether we come from 
a State far away from hurricanes, are deeply worried about what has 
happened and what might happen. We don't know. Nobody knows how 
heartfelt Americans are from the rest of the United States. We are 
prayerful. We are worried, and we hope and pray that what we hear about 
possible damage to parts of Louisiana doesn't happen. It would be 
without precedent if it happens--just terrible. So let energy set aside 
for a little bit as we look at that problem and hope we can do 
something to be helpful.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate being able to follow the 
comments of my esteemed colleague and the chairman of the Energy 
Committee speaking about the importance of energy. He and I would agree 
that is a topic we just haven't heard enough of lately on this floor, 
the Energy bill and an energy policy that this country so desperately 
needs, whether it is Americans looking at the price they are paying for 
gasoline at the pump, whether it is Americans looking at our utility 
statements and realizing the price of natural gas is going beyond a 
level we feel comfortable with, just recognizing that we as a country 
do not have a notion, do not have a real solid policy for how our 
energy supply meets up with our energy demand. That is something we in 
Alaska have talked about for far too long. We have urged this body to 
move forward with an energy policy, one that makes sense.
  I like to say that Alaska is prepared to be or in effect is the 
energy bank for the country. All we are waiting for is the opportunity 
to make a withdrawal from what we have in our incredible resources. But 
as we know, we have some issues we need to work through. Whether it is 
permitting issues for a natural gas pipeline, whether it is those 
financial incentives that make this megaproject, this $20 billion 
project possible so we can supply domestic reserves of natural gas to 
this country, we have the ability to make it happen in Alaska. We just 
need a little assistance from the Congress in moving forward.
  We can't leave this conversation without talking about ANWR and the 
opportunities for us as a nation, recognizing the known reserves we 
have up there, recognizing that we are in a position in the State of 
Alaska to provide for enhanced domestic reserves of oil supplies at a 
time when we know the supplies are questionable from the sources we are 
currently receiving them, whether it is because of political 
instability or just declining reserves. We have an opportunity in the 
State of Alaska. Again, we just need the ability to move forward.
  My purpose today in addressing the body is not to speak to the Energy 
bill or the importance of the Energy bill; it is to speak to an 
incident that happened this morning in the Energy Committee when we, as 
a committee, took up a series of land bills. It was a business meeting 
this morning that was designed to take up and pass, again, some land 
issues. It was kind of a cats and dogs type of a hearing. Most of the 
issues we took up were relatively noncontroversial.
  We have a history in the Energy Committee of working in a very good, 
strong, solid bipartisan way. The committee works well together. The 
chairman and the ranking member work well together. We move forward on 
issues, it is fair to say, in a good and enviable manner. We accomplish 
things. So this morning was a bit of a surprise when, instead of doing 
the business that was before us, we had members of the Democratic Party 
leave, essentially stage a walkout on a business meeting of the Energy 
Committee.
  As an individual Senator coming from my State, working on legislation 
that is important and, quite honestly, isolated to my State, as I am 
working through issues that affect Alaskans, I would ask for certain 
consideration from my colleagues on Alaska-related issues as we work 
through them. Today's episode or incident in the Energy Committee 
doesn't allow Alaska to move forward with a series of our issues.
  So what exactly happened? We had 22 bills move through the markup 
without question or controversy. I had an agenda item that was a bill 
to resolve certain conveyances and provide for alternative land 
selection under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act related to Cape 
Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation and for other purposes, with 
an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I read that from this 
morning's agenda.
  I indicated to the chairman that I had an amendment in the nature of 
a substitute and moved to discuss those portions of the amended bill, 
and the minority members of the committee proceeded to leave the 
committee, which left us without a quorum and no ability to move 
forward on the business. The business remaining were two bills I had 
been working, this Cape Fox bill as well as another very specific 
Alaska lands-related issue.
  As we discussed in the committee, after our Democratic colleagues had 
left, one of my Republican colleagues informed me that in his 24 years 
on the committee, it had been the first time members of the committee 
had walked out, which left me, as the Republican Senator for Alaska 
working on these very specific Alaska pieces, to wonder: Wait a minute, 
I am here to represent my State on very specific Alaska issues. If I 
can't have my colleagues debate back and forth on the merits of the 
amendment, if we don't have the opportunity in these sessions to do the 
business that needs to be done to allow my State to move forward on 
these land issues, how do I move forward with legislation?
  So it causes me to look back and say: Well, was there a failing on my 
part, on my staff's part, or on the committee's part? As we had 
attempted to move this legislation forward, had we failed to work in a 
bipartisan manner, failed to reach out in an attempt to accommodate on 
issues that had caused concern?
  Let me speak to the two different bills we had before us. The first 
one related to the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Adjustment Act. 
Essentially, what this act is destined to do is an equity issue for an 
Alaska Native corporation. It allows for an exchange to resolve an 
inequity to the Cape Fox shareholders through a land selection process. 
This is a land selection process authorized under our Native Claim 
Settlement Act. The shareholders were denied the ability to select 
certain lands within 6 miles of their area. It created an inequity.
  The only way this inequity can be resolved is through Federal 
legislation. So what we have done is created logical boundaries that 
improve Forest Service management. Essentially, this is a land exchange 
that would allow the Cape Fox shareholders to receive certain lands. It 
consolidated private ownership and increased the role of State 
government in the environmental regulatory process. It created economic 
opportunities for Cape Fox and Sealaska through certain leasing 
agreements that would be made possible. It allowed for native hire and 
vocational education in an area where, as I recall, the unemployment 
rate in that very small community is 25.6 percent, almost 420 percent 
of the State's unemployment rate. This is an area that can definitely 
use some equitable economic assistance.
  So the legislation itself is good. It is sound. So the question must 
be, OK, did we fail to reach out? Were we not working with the other 
side on this?
  This is not legislation that is new to the process. This is 
legislation that was actually passed in the 107th Congress. This is 
legislation that was passed through the House committee with unanimous 
support earlier this year.
  I introduced this legislation in June of last year. In August of 
2003, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests held a hearing in 
Anchorage, AK.

[[Page 18533]]

Subsequent to that time, we held a public hearing in Juneau, AK--a 
townhall meeting--in September to hear the comments and concerns of 
Alaskans who are located down in the area where this exchange is to 
take place.
  After that, in March of 2004, we held another subcommittee hearing 
here in Washington, DC. We were then placed on the agenda in mid-March 
for markup--it was March 24. But there was no consensus so we began to 
attempt to work out a compromise to address the concerns that had been 
expressed by some of the environmental community, by Alaskans, and by 
some of our Democratic colleagues; and so what we did was we had 
prepared an amendment that was the amendment we were prepared to offer 
as a complete substitute today. That amendment would maintain the view 
shed in an area where we have recreational opportunities for kayakers 
and boaters, so we inserted an amendment to provide for view shed 
protection, an amendment to provide for public access; and we provided 
a provision that would ensure that all exchanged lands would be based 
on appraisal reports in accordance with the uniform appraisal standards 
of the Federal Land Acquisition Act.
  We essentially had worked through the process. We had worked with the 
committee. After that markup that didn't happen in March of 2004, we 
had discussions with minority staff, which had occurred prior to that 
intended markup date, as well as after. Those discussions continued 
through the third week in July of this year. We were making every 
effort to accommodate the concerns and considerations of the minority 
on this legislation yet still maintain the integrity and meet the needs 
of the Cape Fox Corporation and the Sealaska Corporation.
  In looking at the bill and what we were intending to do, the entire 
intent of the Cape Fox legislation was to correct this inequity to this 
small southeast village, which has 431 residents, where the 
unemployment rate is 25.6 percent, as I indicated. So we were prepared 
to move forward with this legislation today. We had shared the 
amendment with the minority in July and, quite honestly, were stunned 
when the minority members walked out of that committee hearing.
  I need to point out that not only did minority members walk out, 
which put us in a situation where we no longer had a quorum, but 
another minority member attempted to enter the committee room to join 
us in committee, when that individual was literally pushed back out of 
the committee room so a quorum would not be had. So not only was there 
a walkout but there was a lockout.
  Again, it causes one to wonder. If the legislation that I am working 
on as a Senator from Alaska is so Alaska-specific, so Alaska-germane, 
and I cannot get the cooperation of colleagues to move it through even 
the committee process, it causes you to wonder what is going on.
  Let's look at the second bill that was on the calendar this morning. 
Was this what was being objected to? The second piece of legislation 
that was before the committee was S. 1466, ``a bill to facilitate the 
transfer of land in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.''
  Again, what we are talking about here is entirely Alaska-specific. 
This legislation relates to no other State. What we are faced with in 
the State of Alaska, through multiple land acts, through statehood we 
were promised certain lands. We were promised certain lands under the 
Alaska Claims Settlement Act. We are a young State, only 45 years old, 
but we are still waiting for vast amounts of our land to be conveyed to 
us--the land promised at statehood.
  We still have some 89 million acres of land yet to be conveyed to the 
State of Alaska, promised some 45 years ago. We had a hearing on this 
legislation--a subcommittee hearing--in Anchorage last year. I asked 
the agency people at the time: Given how long it has taken the Federal 
agencies to work through the conveyance process and kind of estimating 
forward, how long do you figure it will take for the State of Alaska to 
receive conveyance of all the land to which it is entitled? The 
response that I received was: Anywhere from 30 years to 300 years.
  Thirty years to 300 years to get the lands that were promised to us 
at statehood.
  Mr. President, it is absolutely unacceptable. Any other State would 
have said, no, this is wrong and you have to deliver on your promises.
  So what are we doing? I have introduced this legislation to say: Hey, 
Federal Government, hey, agencies, you have a promise, you made the 
promise. Do the job you are required to do by law. Move through the 
conveyance process. I know it is complicated. I know we have 
overlapping land issues. It is a complicated process, but do what you 
need to do, and if you need additional assistance, let us know how. 
This is essentially legislation that helps speed up, if you will, helps 
expedite the process.
  Let's look at a few of the provisions we are talking about here. We 
are clarifying and streamlining the conveyance process. We have 
technical amendments that move forward filing deadlines. We have a 
situation right now where if there is any survey that is not exactly 
accurate, even by a tiny amount if you are exceeded, then you basically 
have to start all over in terms of completing your surveys.
  What we have done is get the survey down to the last hundredths of an 
acre and if, in fact, it is not exactly entirely precise, you do not 
have to start all over again.
  We set final acreage for the 10 regional Native corporations.
  We allow the Secretary to make certain withdrawals for two of the 
regional corporations which right now do not have sufficient land 
selection.
  We are attempting to solve the problems of old ACSA-related 
withdrawals that closed public lands in Alaska to full operation of 
public land laws.
  We provide that the Natives in Kaktovik are allowed to receive their 
full entitlement under the agreement made in 1983.
  There are some people who have said: Oh, my gosh, you are opening up 
ANWR for oil and gas development. The authorization does not change or 
lift the prohibitions on oil and gas development in the refuge. This is 
not what this is about. This is all about the Natives in this community 
being able to complete their selections as all Alaska Natives should be 
allowed to do.
  There are other technical amendments streamlining the process, the 
deadline for Native corporations in the State of Alaska to identify 
their final land priorities. There is a title that directs the 
Secretary of Interior to speed up the hearings appeals and probates. It 
establishes an Alaska-based branch office and requires the Secretary to 
report on the progress in implementing these land exchanges within 3 
years of enactment.
  It is very clear how Alaska-specific this legislation is.
  Again, the question must be asked: Was there a failure, was there a 
problem in how we worked the committee process? Was this being rushed 
through the committee? Did we fail to reach out to the minority and the 
staff on this?
  Again, I refer to the timeline. The bill was introduced last year. We 
held a subcommittee hearing on public lands and forest in Anchorage. We 
had a further subcommittee hearing in Washington, DC, in February of 
this year, and within a few days of that hearing, my staff met with 
both minority and majority committee staff members, and everyone agreed 
they were going to meet 1 day a week for as long as it took to work out 
a joint staff substitute.
  We were told at that time by the minority that they were working on 
another Member's bill, and once they completed that, they would turn 
their full attention to 1466.
  We made repeated requests in May, June, and the first part of July to 
the minority staff, and it did not result in any meetings. Meetings 
were later held in the latter part of July, and we made substantial 
progress with the assignments agreed to by the committee staff.
  The minority had a number of requests for changes and concessions, 
looking for additional information and

[[Page 18534]]

analysis. They offered to provide assistance with technical edits and 
even to draft at least one provision.
  We continued to work on the bill throughout the August recess. We 
were incorporating all this that we were working through the committee 
process. We had taken massive comments from Alaskan organizations and 
individuals and Native organizations, working the process as the 
process should be worked.
  We truly did make substantial headway. We were prepared this morning 
to move forward with a committee substitute and put forward the 
substance of that substitute to the minority staff on September 2. It 
was a good-faith effort to accommodate all the requested changes 
without sacrificing the goal of completing these land transfers by our 
50th anniversary of statehood, or the year 2009.
  As of last Friday, less than a week ago, we were hearing very 
positive reports about the progress we were making on both sides and 
truly believed we were going to be in a position to offer a joint staff 
substitute at today's meeting.
  It was not until yesterday that we were abruptly informed no such 
substitute would be possible. So I proceeded with an amendment on my 
own, an amendment that really does reflect the very bipartisan effort 
that was going on in this very important bill.
  Again, I need to stress the importance of this legislation: land 
conveyances owed to the State of Alaska since statehood, land 
conveyances owed to Alaska Natives since passage of the Native Claims 
Settlement Act, promises made by the Federal Government to Alaska that 
need to be promises kept.
  I am very committed to my work in the Senate. I am very committed to 
doing my utmost best for the people of the State of Alaska. These two 
pieces of legislation we were prepared to take up this morning and that 
we were thwarted in our efforts to move forward are very important to 
Alaskans. They do make a difference in how we move forward with our 
lands.
  Put your State in this position. If you do not have the ability to 
move forward with your lands, if you do not even know what the status 
of your land title is, how complicated the future is for your State. We 
need to get these issues resolved.
  All I ask for is the ability to do my job, and my job, as we all 
know, requires a cooperative process. We cannot move legislation 
through this body if we do not have cooperation, and cooperation begins 
at that very beginning level, working through the committees, as we 
have with both of these legislations. It then moves forward to that 
next step--to move the legislation through the committee--so we can 
move it to the floor.
  I am happy to engage in debate on the merits. If you do not like the 
amendments, if you think they can be made better, wonderful, let's make 
it happen, but let's at least allow the process to work. When we fail, 
when we as Senators abdicate the duty and say, Alaska, or whatever 
State, you are on your own, nothing is going to move forward, we are 
not doing our job.
  I know this is a contentious time. We are in the middle of all the 
hot political debates. I am a Senator who is standing for election now. 
We know that causes interesting things to happen within the process. 
But I would certainly like to think that what we do here in the course 
of our work should not harm our constituents. We ought to be able to do 
the business that needs to be done in a cooperative manner.
  I am very hopeful we will be able to move forward with not only these 
bills and hopefully see them on the floor of this body, but other 
legislation that pertains to all of us. We all come to this body with 
our very unique issues. They are very particular to our home States. I 
ask that we all respect one another in our efforts to accomplish those 
things that are truly very local to our States.
  So I look forward to next week and an opportunity to again bring 
forward very important issues for my State.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________