The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“ENERGY” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the Senate section on pages S1238-S1241 on Feb. 27, 2002.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ENERGY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I will respond briefly to my good friend, Senator Dorgan. I totally agree with his concept that we should pursue ethanol and wind and all alternative sources of energy. We will need them. There is absolutely no question. We need all the energy we can produce in this country.
The good news is the energy bill has been laid down. I hope we can start on this relatively soon. Clearly, we have to get the pending business resolved. I will discuss the foundation we begin with. It is a departure from the traditions of this body. It is unfortunate the majority leader has seen fit to mandate a procedure that is clearly contrary to the traditions of the process associated with the committees of jurisdiction. I am referring specifically, as former chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and now the ranking member, to the manner in which the majority leader saw fit to circumvent the responsibilities of the committee of jurisdiction.
My good friend, the chairman, Senator Bingaman, and I have worked together for some time. We have had a good relationship. Our theory was we would attempt to develop from the committee process a comprehensive energy bill. When I was chairman, we had hearings, we had input, and we introduced a bill. However, as we all are aware, there was a change in June. As a consequence, the Republicans lost control of the Senate and hence lost control of the agenda of the committee process.
Prior to the changeover, we had had several discussions in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on various issues associated with the proposed energy legislation. This came about as a consequence of our President laying down as one of his prerequisites a mandate that Congress address an energy bill and do it with dispatch. The House has done its job in H.R. 4. So it became the responsibility of the Senate to take up a comprehensive energy bill.
What happened in the process deserves enlightenment. This is what I specifically object to. On the issue of ANWR, we had enough bipartisan votes to report out a bill containing ANWR. The leader knew this. As a consequence, in order to circumvent this process, the terminology I think that was used was to alleviate any differences of opinion in the process. However, that is what this body is all about, differences of opinion in coming together on a consensus. Nonetheless, the leader prevailed and ordered the chairman, Senator Bingaman, not to hold any markups on the bill. That precluded the committee from pursuing a process of taking up a bill, proceeding with amendments in the ordinary workings of the committee process, and voting out and bringing to the floor a comprehensive bill.
I can only assume the leader did this as a parliamentary maneuver to ensure we would not get a vote in committee on ANWR, where he clearly knew we had the votes to get it out. I hope every Senator in this body considers the precedent this action sets, particularly those Senators who value the traditions and open debate concept associated with this body. This is a departure. This is almost a dictate from the majority leader who simply says we are not going to allow the committee of jurisdiction to take up the bill and vote it out and bring it to the floor.
That prevailed, and we have a situation where we are about to start debate on a very complex bill that has not gone through the committee process. What does this mean? This means every Member will be subjected to some very complex issues, those particularly associated with the electricity portion. They are not going to understand the terminology because it didn't go through the committee. There will be a lot of interest on behalf of various lobbyists who have different points of view relative to certain aspects, aspects that have never had a hearing, never had an opportunity for Members to express their views, let alone vote it out.
I am very irate as a consequence of this circumvention of our responsibility, and I think every Senator should be. We should put politics aside and reflect on the traditions of this body which dictate this is not the way this body traditionally does business.
Sure, the majority leader can initiate an action and go around the committee process, but is that the tradition of the Senate? Is that the tradition to circumvent the committees and the amendment process by subjecting this body now to a bill while it has not had hearings on many of the portions that are very complex?
I know how the majority leader feels about ANWR, but I add one more observation. He has indicated if ANWR stays in the bill, he will pull the bill. That means regardless of how the Senate prevails in a democratic process, he will take the initiative to see that it will not happen. He has circumvented the committee process which requires--
instead of 51 votes--60 votes, on cloture, which he would, of course, file. Then he says if you get 60 votes, you are going to lose because he is going to pull the bill.
I don't care what the issue is, but I suggest this is a poor way to do business. The Senate should reflect on just what is happening and whether we can support a leader who dictatorially initiates an action of this type. I know it makes many members of the committees feel somewhat at a loss: What are we here for if we are not here to conduct committee business in the course of our responsibility?
As we start to consider this bill, we should continue to reflect on how we got there. We got there without a committee process. We got there as a consequence of the majority leader taking the authority away from the committee. We got a bill before the Senate that has not had a markup, it has not had individual hearings, and many of the portions of the bill, we are told, if we prevail on one, particularly the lightning rod of ANWR, we will lose anyway because he will pull the bill. I just want all parties to know that I object, and I know a number of my colleagues do, to this type of procedure.
I want to refer to a couple of other points that I think are germane to the debate which is going to take place.
For some time now we have been dependent on imported oil from Iraq. As a matter of fact, on September 11 we were importing a little over 1 million barrels a day from that nation. We are enforcing a no-fly zone over that nation. We are putting the lives of our young men and women at risk enforcing that no-fly zone. Yet we are buying oil. It is almost as if we take the oil, put it in our airplanes, and go take out his targets.
What does he do with the money he receives from the United States? He keeps his Republican Guard well fed. That keeps him alive. What else does he do? He develops a missile capability, a delivery capability, biological capability, and perhaps aimed at our ally, Israel.
That is the fact associated with the vulnerability of this country as we increase our dependence on imported oil. We are about 58 percent dependent, and it is increasing. The Department of Energy says it is going to be up to 63 percent or 64 percent in the year 2006. What does that do to the vulnerability of the United States? It means we become more dependent on Iraq.
What about Saudi Arabia? When we look at the terrorist activities in New York, we find most of the passports are from Saudi Arabia. It is a very unstable area, and we are becoming more and more dependent. Is it not in our national interest to reduce our dependence? The answer is clearly yes.
Let me reflect on one more thing. We have not had an inspector in Iraq in several years, under the U.N. agreement. We don't know what Iraq is up to. But as we reflect on the terrors and tragedies that have already occurred in this Nation, we recognize we should have acted sooner. We knew who bin Laden was. We knew about al-Qaida. Yet we did not act, and we know the consequences. The consequences became evident on September 11.
What day of reckoning is going to come when we have to face what Saddam Hussein has been up to? Will it be after the fact or will we mandate that our inspectors go in there and address this threat now? I know what my recommendation would be. It is better sooner than later; sooner to take out the terrorism risks associated with Saddam Hussein.
I know this is something the administration is agonizing about and will be critical if, indeed, there is some action and we will not have taken action.
This is what this issue is all about. It is about the national security of this country and our increased dependence. I do not know how many of my colleagues remember 1973-1974, the Yom Kippur War. Some of us are old enough to remember we had gas lines around the block. The public was outraged, they were inconvenienced.
What was the result of that? We were 37 percent dependent on imported oil at that time. Now we are 58 percent dependent. You figure it out. It is pretty easy. Our vulnerability has increased. Make no mistake about it, with the unrest in the Mideast we are going to have a crisis. I can tell you, every Member of this body will be standing in line behind me to open up ANWR. They will say we have to increase our domestic production.
What is this bill anyway? Partially, as I have indicated, it is a bill in the national security interests of our country. I ask my colleagues, are they going to stand behind the environmental lobby, that has used this as a cash cow for membership and dollars? There is no evidence to suggest we can't open this area safely. This is my State. We support opening ANWR. We were there when the arguments in the 1960s were prevailing against opening Prudhoe Bay and building an 800-
mile pipeline.
Let me tell you what that has done. That has provided this Nation, for several years--it has been operating 27 years--for several years with 25 percent of the total crude oil produced in this country. That was about 2 million barrels a day. Today it is a little over 1 million barrels, a little over 20 percent.
Where was that issue in the 1960s? That issue was before the Senate. It was a tie vote. The Vice President broke the tie, and it passed by one vote. That is how close it was. Where would we have been if we had not done that? Instead of 58 percent, we would probably be somewhere in the area of 68 percent dependent on imported oil.
What were the arguments then? You are going to build an 800-mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It is going to be like a fence across Alaska, and the caribou and the moose are not going to cross it. It is going to have a terrible effect on the environment. You are putting a hot pipeline in permafrost, and when the hot pipeline melts the permafrost, it is going to break.
It has been there 27 years, one of the construction wonders of the world. All the doomsayers' arguments then are the same arguments now: You can't do it safely; you can't protect the caribou.
They are all false. Go up to Prudhoe Bay and you find the caribou herd is 27,000. It was 3,000 or 4,000 in the late 1960s.
Talk about polar bear habitat--you can't shoot a polar bear in the United States, and Alaska is part of the United States. You can in Russia. You can in Canada.
So as we reflect upon what we are about to embark, I encourage my colleagues and you, Madam President, to reflect on the prevailing arguments that were used 27 years ago and the prevailing arguments that we are using now. As I indicated, the argument then was a hot pipeline through permafrost; it was a fence across Alaska; it was whether or not we could do it safely; it was the caribou herd--all of which history has proven we have been able to do. We have overcome the problems and responsively addressed them.
One can go up to Prudhoe Bay and get off the airplane and walk over to where the pickups are. Do you know what you see under every single pickup? You see a diaper. It is under the pan of the car. It is a big cotton thing to pick up a drop of oil that spills. As you know, in your own driveway you get drops of oil. That is the extent they go to, to try to maintain the maximum environmental oversight.
As we address this ANWR issue, keep in mind the arguments of those opposed to it. They say it is a 6-month supply of oil. We all know that is only if you didn't have any oil produced in this country or any oil imported into this country. To what does it equate? We don't really know, but the latest USGS reports say 5.6 billion to 16 billion barrels. How does that compare with anything you and I can understand? You can compare it with what Prudhoe Bay has produced in 27 years. Prudhoe Bay was supposed to produce 10 billion barrels. It is on its 13 billionth barrel now. If you took half of the range of ANWR, 5.6 and 16, and said it was 10, it would be as big as Prudhoe Bay.
The infrastructure is already in place. You have a pipeline 800 miles long that is only half full. This is not a big issue, in the sense of reality. Yes, it is a significant amount of oil, if it is 10 billion barrels. If it is 16, it is even better. But if it is 3.5, you will not even develop it because you have to have a major discovery in order to develop in the higher Arctic altitudes associated with drilling in that part of the world.
It is either there in abundance--and it has to be to make a difference--or it isn't. They say it will take 10 years. Come on. If President Clinton had not vetoed the bill in 1995, it would be on line now. He vetoed it. Why? Same response: The environmental community pressured. The cash cow generates membership, it generates dollars. And they are milking it for all it is worth, and will continue until we prevail. Then they will go on to another issue.
What about the Porcupine caribou? We have already addressed that with the caribou comparison in Prudhoe Bay, where they have flourished. As I indicated before, it was a short break.
We don't shoot polar bear. You can't take trophy polar bear in Alaska. They are marine mammals, they are protected. If you want to protect the animals, you don't shoot them; you don't take them for food, or subsistence. There are very few taken for subsistence, I might add.
These are some of the arguments we are going to be addressing.
Furthermore, this is a big jobs bill. Find an issue that employs 250,000 people. These are high-paying jobs. That is why the unions support it. It will generate somewhere in the area of $2.5 billion in Federal lease sales because these are Federal leases that will come back into the Treasury. It won't cost the taxpayers one red cent. Find a better stimulus.
What about the veterans in this country? They are for it because they do not want to fight another war in a foreign country over oil.
I am always reminded of my good friend, Mark Hatfield. He is a pacifist who said before this body time and time again, I will vote for opening this area any day rather than send a young man or woman overseas to fight in a war over oil in a foreign land.
We talk about alternative energy. I indicated that I support it. But let me tell you about a little comparison. I have some graphs that will show this. One of the largest wind farms in the United States is located outside of Palms Springs. It is between Palm Springs and Banning, CA. I think it is called San Jacinto. That farm has hundreds of windmills that move when the wind blows. They do not move all the time. The footprint there is 1,500 acres. You see it and you say: Wow, there are a lot of windmills there.
What is the equivalent of that in oil production? That would be equivalent to 1,350 barrels of oil a day from 1,500 acres. What is ANWR? ANWR is 2,000 acres. The equivalent production is 1 million barrels a day. I support wind power, but if you are looking for relief, you had better put it in an equation that makes sense and that people can understand. From 1,500 acres, the equivalent from that wind farm is 1,350 barrels of oil. ANWR's footprint as authorized in the House bill is 2,000 acres. That is equivalent to 1 million barrels per day.
Let us remember the bottom line--our national security. What could this do for the U.S. steel industry? When we built that 800-mile pipeline, do you know what the U.S. steel industry did? This was the largest order ever in the United States--800 miles of 48-inch pipe. They did absolutely nothing. They said: We don't have the capacity for an order that big. Where did it come from? It came from Korea, it came from Japan, and it came from Italy. If the steel unions and the steel industry want to get their act together, let us go after some domestic business. You will have some more domestic business associated with opening up ANWR.
I encourage my colleagues again to reflect a little bit. I hope everybody's conscience bothers them about the manner in which this was laid down, without a committee process and without the jurisdiction of the Democratic chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The leadership pulled it out of the committee because he knew we had the votes to get it to the floor and, furthermore, the dictatorial statement that even if we prevail, he is going to pull the bill. Come on. I have been around this place long enough to know what the democratic process is all about, the committee process is all about, and the traditions of the Senate are all about. This is the wrong way to start a bill.
I thank the Chair. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
