[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1835-H1840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VICE PRESIDENT GORE'S ENERGY POLICY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, tonight marks the third installment in a
series of special orders begun last summer that Members of the House
have held on the record and views of Vice President Al Gore.
The Vice President is fond of attacking the work of the majority in
the House. We conservatives believe it is important that Americans
understand why Al Gore finds our record of cutting taxes, balancing the
budget, eliminating wasteful spending, and restoring common sense
environmental policies so contemptible.
We believe it is important that the American people know what their
Vice President actually stands for. Today, we will examine Vice
President Gore's energy policy.
American motorists and hard-working truck drivers in rural and urban
areas, particularly those with lower incomes, are getting squeezed by
soaring gas prices.
Unfortunately, the Vice President is not there to help. In fact, he
is cheering the prices on. It would distress the American people to
learn that the Vice President is pleased with this turn of events.
After all, he has long advocated policies expressly intended to raise
the price and decrease the availability of gasoline to the American
people.
He thinks that we just plain use too much of it, the only way to get
us to cut back is to raise the prices. Whether it happens through
conservation or supply cutbacks, price controls, or tax increases, the
end result is what matters. And not only gasoline but all sources of
energy he thinks other people should not use are targeted. The Vice
President has long advocated his disturbing energy policy, summed up as
the less energy used the better.
Tonight we will highlight excerpts from his apocalyptic book Earth in
the Balance and other statements the Vice President has made in the
past.
Parenthetically, I note this book is being reissued. I am delighted
to hear that. I recommend its reading by every informed American so
that they will clearly understand what they are getting when they have
Al Gore as the Vice President.
Since taking office in 1993 with President Clinton, Vice President
Gore was essentially seated in environmental policy for the
administration. The administration wasted little time in pursuing an
agenda of strict controls on energy. Indeed, it was not more than a
couple of months after taking office that a Btu tax was first proposed
in 1993 that would force people to feed big government in direct
proportion to the amount of energy they consume.
While even the Democrat-dominated Congress rejected that approach, a
4.3 cents per gallon surtax was successfully levied on gasoline. In
fact, the Vice President cast the deciding tie-breaking vote in the
upper body that allowed this commuter-punishing tax to be enacted. And
it remains with us until this day.
Vice President Gore advocated this tax hike not so much to increase
revenues for the Federal Government but really to help increase the
price of gas and help keep Americans out of their cars. But the price
of gasoline has increased so much recently as to dwarf those 4.3 cents
per gallon.
It represents the best of all worlds for Vice President Gore. He has
the higher gas prices, which he favors on policy grounds, but he did
not have to pass such a massive tax increase in order to accomplish it.
To those complaining of high gas prices, Mr. Gore would say, too bad.
It is for your own good. Buck up, take your own medicine. If you do not
like it, then invent a more efficient engine, ride a bicycle, or take
the bus.
Tonight we will talk about the foreign policy failure of this
administration, which, by its own admission, was ``asleep at the
wheel'' on this vital international issue. We will discuss how the
administration deliberately increased our dependence on OPEC and other
foreign sources of oil in the first place.
The United States actually has the potential to become much less
dependent on foreign powers for oil, but to do so would conflict with
the Vice President's utopian new-age vision beautifully laid out in
this book Earth in the Balance.
Not only oil but other prominent energy sources have been attacked by
the Clinton-Gore administration. The Vice President has urged Americans
to find alternative energy sources as an answer to our current woes.
Well, those have been tried before and they have failed despite heavy
Federal subsidies.
As my colleagues can see here in this chart, this thin red line
represents the alternative energy sources, which is just about one
percent or so of the total energy consumption in the United States.
The Kyoto Emissions Treaty negotiated by the Vice President would
have a devastating impact on American's lives. The upper body wisely
refused to ratify it, but the Clinton-Gore administration is trying to
implement it stealthily nonetheless. It would make the present
situation with gasoline prices pale in comparison.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman performs an excellent service to his colleagues in
holding this special order this evening to continue his quest for
awareness by the American public of the lack of policy for long-term
self-sufficiency for the United States and, worse than that, the
implementation of a short-sighted policy that can hurt the American
citizen in the short term and the long term.
[[Page H1836]]
It was interesting to hear the gentleman report that the energy
policy, if we want to call it that, on the part of the administration
calls for less consumption, less utilitarian use of energy, less.
Everyone knows that the prosperity we are enjoying now and the
prosperity which we want to enlarge depends on innovative ways to use
energy to propound the materiel by which we produce and by which we
span the world in telecommunications, that we need more energy and,
therefore, more consumption. And in order to do that, we cannot gain
our goals by shrinking back on consumption, shrinking back on energy
sources. But, rather, we must do exactly the reverse.
That is why I have introduced legislation which I commend to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) which calls for the
establishment of a blue ribbon commission, much like we had with the
Social Security problems of 1977 and 1983, which came forth with
solutions that are still on the books and which serve to save the
Social Security system, but anyway, a blue ribbon commission to
establish ways and means by which the United States of America can
become self-sufficient at energy within 10 years.
{time} 1930
Before everyone bursts into laughter at the impossibility of bringing
about self-sufficiency within 10 years, I remind everyone that everyone
laughed at President Kennedy when he felt that within 10 years we
should be, from his time, on the Moon, and we were. I believe that we
can develop a policy that will lead us to the promised land of self-
sufficiency within 10 years. But then in order to do that, we have to
reverse this administration's course, and that is what the gentleman is
saying this evening, reverse it by allowing fullest consideration of
the oil reserves in Alaska. That goes without saying. That has to be
fully explored. And if the people of Alaska themselves are eager to
develop their own resources for the benefit of our country, who are we
to say in Washington, D.C. that the Alaskans do not know what they are
asking? They know what the value is of their resources, with due
consideration for the environment, the wildlife and all the other
considerations. They know best about that. Yet they are the ones who
are the primary forces behind the idea of considering full exploration
of Alaskan oil.
Then we have our lower 48 resources which have to be fully developed.
This commission that I envision would look at the way that we failed in
the past with oil depletion allowances and with excess profit taxes and
with disincentives rather than incentives for exploration of oil and to
consider all the possibilities of how we can fully develop that oil and
natural gas and all the other possibilities that abound in our own
Nation.
We can become self-sufficient. We need more energy. We can do it.
This would have another bonanza, I believe, with it. I think the
gentleman will agree, if we think it through together, that if we
embark on a program of self-sufficiency within 10 years, in the short
term it will help us in another way. OPEC will get a signal, all the
other oil-producing countries will get a signal that no longer are we
going to be satisfied to bow at the knees of the OPEC countries and beg
for more oil. They will get the signal that we are intent on becoming
self-sufficient. What will that do? That will make them more temperate
in the fluctuation of oil production and prices that they have been
engaging in for all these years and that will help us in the short term
and in the long term.
And then as we move gradually towards this self-sufficiency, we will
see our prosperity expand to unknown limits. I believe that even the
alternative forms of energy will find a proper place, solar and wind
and the geothermal and other kinds of alternatives that we can space
out for our country's use over the next 10 years and then thereafter be
totally self-sufficient.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I could not agree more with the gentleman. I remember
reading these figures. At the time of the Gulf War, we were only 36
percent dependent on foreign oil. Under the Clinton-Gore
administration, we have now slipped over the line to the point where
now we are 56 percent dependent on foreign oil, and the policies that
they are providing to this country will make us even more dependent
into the future. I think you just have to ask yourself, would a Teddy
Roosevelt have let this happen? Would a great President or a great
administration have put us at the mercy of these governments that
control most of the world's oil supply? I think the answer is clearly
no.
Mr. GEKAS. I will conclude by thanking the gentleman for the time
that he has allotted me and to end by saying I as an American citizen
am totally embarrassed and humiliated at the thought of having to beg
the OPEC countries to produce more, to send us more, to sell us more of
their energy product. It is humiliating. I think our whole Nation is
humiliated by what has occurred. We have got to reverse this impact and
become self-sufficient so that the OPEC countries eventually will come
to beg us to sell us more oil, to beg us to buy more oil.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman for his comments and
participation this evening.
I ran across an interesting quote here. This is by our President,
very recently as a matter of fact, March 7, speaking at the White
House.
``Americans should not want them,'' referring to oil prices, ``to
drop to $12 or $10 a barrel again, because that takes our mind off our
business, which should be alternative fuels, energy conservation,
reducing the impact of all this on global warming.''
We talked about alternative fuels. It would be great if we could
increase the size of this. But despite heavy Federal subsidies, we have
not made much progress.
Let me now observe that in his book I referred to, Earth in the
Balance, the Vice President referred back to that book just about a
year ago and is quoted in Time magazine on pages 65 through 67, April
26, 1999. If there were ever a doubt that maybe his views have changed
somewhat in light of events that have transpired, that maybe he has
reconsidered certain outlandish statements made in the book, well, it
is apparent that that is not the case, because this is what he said:
``There's not a statement in that book that I don't endorse. The
evidence has firmed up the positions I sketched there.''
I think there is some pretty interesting material in that book. Let
me talk a little bit about the failure of the foreign policy of the
Clinton-Gore administration, because indeed they have deliberately made
us more beholden to the foreign oil-producing nations, particularly
OPEC. As the Energy Secretary recently admitted, the administration
was, quote-unquote, ``caught napping'' regarding the current crisis at
the gas pump. OPEC should not have the unilateral power to dictate the
price of gasoline that American motorists pay at the pump; but
unfortunately this is exactly what is happening.
This really is a national security issue. We have put ourselves at
the mercy of many regimes hostile to the United States. The weak,
vacillating foreign policy of the Clinton administration has a great
deal to do with this as we continue to tolerate the excesses of Saddam
Hussein. In case of hostilities with any one of these oil-producing
nations, we could have our oil supplies cut drastically with little
recourse. The Clinton-Gore administration response was to beg OPEC to
increase production, and so we went hat in hand asking them, please
increase production. We need an administration that will strongly
advocate U.S. interests and will produce policies that will take care
of the national security of all Americans.
Let me just comment on this energy policy. Here are a few facts that
have been assembled, alarming oil and gas facts. Since 1992, U.S. oil
production is down 17 percent. Yet consumption is up 14 percent. In
just 1 year under the Clinton-Gore administration, oil imports
increased over 7 percent. As I mentioned, imports are now at 56 percent
and growing rapidly. The Department of Energy predicts 65 percent
foreign oil dependence by the year 2020. Indeed some project it will be
higher than that. Sixty-five percent importing probably the most
fundamental commodity to the interests of this Nation.
At current prices, the United States spends $300 million per day on
imported oil, over $100 billion per year on foreign oil, one-third of
the total trade deficit. Iraq is the fastest growing source of
[[Page H1837]]
U.S. oil imports. In 1990 we had 405,000 jobs in exploring and
producing oil and gas. In 1999, that number of 405,000 had dwindled to
293,000, a 27 percent decline. In 1990 we had 657 working U.S. oil
rigs. In the year 2000, 10 years later, we had 153 working oil rigs.
Our fuel storage has shrunk.
New York lost 20 percent of heating oil storage because of
governmental mandates contributing to shortages and price hikes. This
year's Department of Energy budget has $1.2 billion for climate change
activities but only $92 million for oil and gas research and
development. It is clear that the priorities of this administration are
not on decreasing dependence on foreign oil, for indeed just the
opposite has happened during the nearly 8 years now of this
administration. The administration indeed is quite adamant about
blocking our attempts to gain energy self-sufficiency. I will just read
this quote from the Vice President. He said in October of 1995, ``If
they,'' meaning the Republican majority, ``satisfy us on 100 percent of
everything else we ask for and they open ANWR in Alaska to drilling,
President Clinton will veto the whole thing.''
Mr. Gore is an absolutist in opposition to drilling for new sources
of American oil. During his tenure in office, as I mentioned, our
demand has grown by 14 percent while our domestic oil production
declined by 17 percent. Yet Mr. Gore supports government policies that
take many areas of the United States with the greatest oil potential
off the table. ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, is a 1\1/2\
million-acre arctic coastal plain in Alaska. In 1998, the U.S.
Geological Survey estimated that up to 16 billion barrels lie
underneath the soil in ANWR, enough to replace our oil imports from
Saudi Arabia for 30 years. These reserves can be tapped into with
essentially no environmental damage. The development area where the
drilling would occur would be less than 1 percent of the whole Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, leaving almost no impact on the environment.
Just to note, at the existing Prudhoe Bay site, the North Slope,
which currently provides an enormous amount of oil to the domestic
market, wildlife has thrived despite the outrageous and extreme claims
of so-called self-styled environmentalists, people with whom apparently
the Vice President identifies, that we would do grave harm to the
wildlife there. I have been there personally to see it. You would be
very impressed with what is going on at Prudhoe Bay and the pipeline.
Very, very impressive operation. It has not damaged the environment. If
anything, it is looked upon as an asset, and the wildlife has
flourished with the facilities that have been placed there.
The people of Alaska overwhelmingly support drilling in ANWR, but the
Vice President does not; and as we can see made clear that he would
recommend a veto and indeed that is exactly what happened. It was
vetoed by the administration. The cost of oil and gas exploration in
the U.S. is so expensive through our tax and environmental policies
that our own companies would rather search for oil among armed
terrorists in Colombia than here. Pushing industry outside the United
States does not help the environment because what they do will occur in
places where it is not as strictly regulated as in this country.
Nevertheless, the production will occur.
Transferring businesses to nations that lack our stringent production
standards invites mishaps. Requiring that more oil be shipped overseas
increases the risk of tanker accidents. By importing oil, we also are
exporting our wealth and jobs overseas. As I observed, the domestic
energy industry has lost 112,000 jobs during this administration.
Let us talk about Kyoto. The Vice President wrote in his book, Earth
in the Balance, something I think we should focus on for a minute.
{time} 1945
``Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs,
moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu
of genuine change; these are all forms of appeasement, designed to
satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a
wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.''
Focus on that for a minute. What he is really saying is, in his view,
a wrenching transformation of society will be necessary, and that we
are fools to think that it will not be. A wrenching transformation of
society. Let us see. Could that mean something on the scale of the
forcing out of the rural areas into the cities, the peasants in Russia,
the so-called collectivization that resulted in the deaths of so many
millions. That was a wrenching transformation of society. Or could the
period under Mao in China when so many millions were tortured and
murdered there, would that be a wrenching transformation of society?
That is what I think of when those terms are used. I really think we
ought to ponder this belief of the Vice President.
Now, Kyoto, speaking of a wrenching transformation of society,
because I believe this is on that magnitude. The disastrous Kyoto
protocol was negotiated by the Clinton-Gore administration in 1997, and
it would force just indeed such a wrenching transformation that the
Vice President envisions in Earth in the Balance, his book written
personally, he has reaffirmed by him. And he agrees even more now, or
as much now, feels that the arguments have been strengthened in the
intervening years since he first wrote it.
The Kyoto protocol requires the United States by the year 2012 to
reduce emissions to the levels they were at in the 1980s. The economic
recession of the late 1970s caused the United States to cut emissions
by 2 percent. Complying with Kyoto would require 3 times the cutbacks
experienced during those economic downturns. Those were not good times.
We all remember them well, those of us who are old enough to remember.
They were very trying times for the United States. It is indeed tragic
and frankly, amazing, that someone who has risen to the office of Vice
President would propose these sorts of Draconian alterations in our
policy.
Happily, the upper body in the Congress voted unanimously to urge the
President and the Vice President not to sign the U.S. on to any global
warming treaty if it exempted developing countries or injured the
American economy. Nevertheless, the resolution of the upper body was
ignored and the treaty was negotiated and signed. This treaty basically
allowed 132 out of the 168 countries attending the conference to opt
out of the treaty on the grounds that they are still developing
countries. Among these countries are some of the world's biggest
polluters, including China, India, Brazil, and Mexico. So, out of the
168 countries that get to opt out, only 36, including the United
States, are precluded by the provisions of the treaty from opting out.
Perhaps the Draconian sacrifices in our standard of living required
by Kyoto would qualify us as a developing country. Taken together,
developing countries will emit a majority of the world's greenhouse gas
emissions by 2015. Yet, under Mr. Gore's treaty, none of those
countries would have any obligation to reduce emissions or to obey the
rules that govern the United States under the treaty. With so few
countries actually agreeing to this protocol, it is highly doubtful
that global warming will be reduced.
Happily, the upper body has refused to vote on and ratify the Kyoto
treaty. But that has not stopped the Clinton-Gore administration from
attempting to end-run the Constitution in implementing it anyway. This
administration's 1999 budget included $6.3 billion, an increase to the
EPA to draft strict new rules that would unilaterally enact portions of
the Kyoto protocol. The cost to U.S. business workers and consumers of
complying with the Vice President's Kyoto treaty could be staggering.
In real terms, Al Gore committed Americans to reduce our fossil fuel
emissions by 41 percent, compared to projections of what we need to
maintain our economic growth.
Now, just focus on this for a minute. A 41 percent reduction in
fossil fuel emissions would result in huge job losses. Up to 1.5
million workers would lose their jobs in energy intensity manufacturing
industries like petroleum, refining, pulp and paper making, cement,
steel, chemicals and aluminum, as these jobs move to developing nations
not bound by the Kyoto restrictions.
What kind of a policy could that possibly be, to take these high-
paying jobs
[[Page H1838]]
and send them to some developing Nation and out of the United States to
be replaced, no doubt, by more service sector, lower-paying jobs.
Secondly, a 41 percent reduction in fossil fuel emissions would
result in a huge increase in the cost of living. American families
would pay 25 cents per gallon more due to this alone, this treaty, and
$2,000 more annually, for necessary consumer goods, which will
experience the trickle-down effect of having the fuel costs raised, and
since all of these goods are moved in one way or another and the fuel
is used, the average increase for Americans could be $2,000 a year.
Thirdly, due to this 41 percent reduction brought about by the Kyoto
treaty, reduction in the fossil fuel emissions, it would greatly
diminish U.S. trade competitiveness. Now, we constantly hear out of
this administration how they are concerned about trade and they want to
increase competitiveness. Well, Kyoto really sets us back. Since 132
countries are not subject to the treaty, the Kyoto treaty will make it
much harder for U.S. businesses to compete internationally.
Now, let us get to this: what would it really take? Suppose somehow
this were to become law, which the Vice President really wants it to
become law and has done everything he could to try and bring that
about. Well, it would require huge reductions in total U.S. consumption
of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. The only practical way to
force these cuts would be through steep price increases. That is really
what it is all about. That is why the Vice President is happy that the
gas prices have gone up. It is long overdue. Economists, friends of the
administration, we can read their quotes in the current news magazines,
saying how our gasoline prices were way too low and this is a good
thing to have them up there, that these economists, some of them, who
obviously are very sympathetic to the unfriendly policies of the
Clinton-Gore administration, they also decry the rise in SUVs.
Americans love their sports utility vehicles. Well, this administration
is not at all happy about that, and their friends are not at all happy
about that, and they would like to see the price of gas rise so much
that one cannot afford to drive those vehicles which they think are bad
for the country.
Let me just observe in reference to this point that gas price hikes
really are what would be compelled by the Clinton-Gore Kyoto treaty. In
other places, where the countries have signed the treaty and which have
put the treaty into force, unlike the United States; in Germany,
France, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan, they have all decided
that the only way to reach the Kyoto limits is to raise taxes on fossil
fuels. These countries, not coincidentally, in my judgment, are the
ones that have had much slower economic growth than the United States
over the past decade. What would we expect when the price of gas in
Europe for years has been between $2 and $3 a gallon because of the
high excise taxes that they have imposed.
Mr. Speaker, we do not want the Europeanization of our energy policy.
Cheap energy has been a tremendous blessing, perhaps the single
greatest blessing that we could name in terms of economics to the
people of this great country. Now we have people in power that are
determined to wreck that policy and to replace it with something that
will really shrink our standard of living and will make it much more
difficult to maintain the prosperity and rates of economic growth that
we have had in the past.
Well, we have spent a few minutes tonight talking about the role of
the Vice President and his views on energy policy. I am glad that we
have had this opportunity, and I would like now to recognize my
colleague from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I certainly commend the gentleman for bringing this
Special Order to the floor this evening.
One of the things that I have noticed in my 5 years of experience
here on Capitol Hill, having left my previous vocation as a physician
and taken up the role of legislator for the people of my congressional
district is the nature by which so many of the more outrageous blunders
and outrageous statements that come from the Vice President are
essentially ignored or passed over by the major media outlets in the
United States, the electronic media and many of the printed media
outlets, newspapers such as the Post, The New York Times.
One area that is very, very significant in my congressional district
is the mismanagement by the Vice President of the space station
program. The space station program is a program that was redesigned by
the Clinton-Gore team in 1993, and in that process, they brought the
Russians in as critical partners where we were now suddenly dependent
upon the Russians for critical elements in space station construction.
The Vice President was intimately involved with this program.
Over the years, subsequent to 1993 he had a series of meetings with
the prime minister, Mr. Chernomyrdin at which various phases of space
station progress were negotiated, along with other scientific
enterprises that the United States was supposedly cooperating with the
Russians on.
There were many people, including the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the Republican Chairman of the Committee on Science,
who warned at the time that this approach and this strategy that the
administration is pursuing is risky, is dangerous, and could lead to
significant delays in the space station program, significant cost
overruns, tremendous amounts of additional costs and, indeed, could
ultimately lead to the failure of the program in its very important
mission.
Well, now here we are, 7 years later, and lo and behold, all of the
warnings of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) at that
time have come to pass, and indeed, we have a situation where instead
of saving $2 billion as was originally put forward by Clinton-Gore, the
space station program is probably going to cost $4 billion over and
above what it was originally projected to cost. We have gone from a
savings of $2 billion to an overrun of $4 billion, a $6 billion swing.
What is equally egregious is the program is now 2 years behind
schedule and indeed, it is uncertain as to whether or not it is ever
going to be able to get back on track.
What is even more disappointing is that the Vice President's
fingerprints were all over this, and he has yet to put forward his
proposal to get this program back on track.
{time} 2000
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to observe that the
gentleman is absolutely right.
It is a funny thing. With the Clinton-Gore administration, the only
time I have ever seen them interested in saving money is when it comes
to cutting taxes. All of a sudden, they are the guardians of the
Treasury. Every last dime they have to hang onto so none of it goes
back to the taxpayer.
The gentleman just mentioned a $6 billion increase they had gone
along with. Their regulatory policies are costing us billions and
billions of dollars, the consumer and the country itself. They are
constantly pushing for increasing the amounts of money in these
appropriations bills. They are vetoing our bills because they do not
spend enough money, but if it comes to hanging onto the dollar and
protecting the taxpayer against himself by not letting him have a tax
cut, they are very good about being parsimonious.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, I want to follow that, regarding Al Gore's assertions that
George W. Bush's tax cut policies are risky. He is fond of using this
term. He used this term to describe the Republican tax cuts policies in
the past.
The question I would ask the Vice President, which I believe people
in the media should be asking him, is why is it risky when we want to
give working men and women a portion of their money back, but it is not
risky when Al Gore and Bill Clinton spend that money? Which gets to the
heart of the issue that the gentleman is talking about. The only time
they talk about saving money is when they are talking about not giving
a tax cut.
Why, why, why is it so risky to give working men and women some of
their hard-earned tax dollars back to spend on their priorities: their
kids' college educations, braces for the kids, saving money for the
first home, getting out
[[Page H1839]]
of an apartment? That is risky, but lo and behold, when they want to
increase spending from Washington, when they want to keep that hard-
earned money of those working families and spend it on what Al Gore
thinks it should be spent on, then that is not risky.
The answer to that is very, very obvious. This is empty rhetoric used
as ploy to avoid the thing they despise the most, which is taking power
and influence out of Washington, out of the hands of elected
politicians, and giving it back to people; giving the money that they
earned back into their own pockets and pocketbooks.
I just applaud the gentleman for so many of the issues that he is
bringing up.
I was listening to the gentleman's presentation earlier. He brought
up the whole issue of ANWR. I am very, very glad that the gentleman
brought that up as it relates to what is going on right now in this
country with the high gasoline prices, high fuel oil prices that many,
many Americans are having to wrestle with, and the impact on their
budget.
We have millions and millions of barrels of additional oil available
to us in Alaska. President Clinton and the Vice President are standing
against exploiting those oil reserves for no rational reason
whatsoever.
I went up there to the North Slope, and people like the Vice
President talk about the North Slope as though it is this pristine,
wonderful place that we have to protect, teeming with wildlife. It is
the most barren, moonlike landscape that Members could ever imagine,
and the most amazing thing is that the people who live there see
absolutely no problem with tapping into these oil reserves.
The technology has gotten so good and so sophisticated that not only
do we protect the environment but, as well, the environment is enhanced
by the oil exploration efforts that are there.
When I was there, because of the initiatives pursued, they now have
ponds that were lifeless that were rendered deeper because they needed
the gravel, and now the ponds are filled with fish. Those fish-filled
ponds are attracting more grizzly bears. The roads that they build to
drive on in the oil exploration efforts raise the ground up
sufficiently that various birds can nest along the edge of the road, so
we have a proliferation of birds as a consequence.
Furthermore, the Holy Grail, the thing that they ballyhooed was going
to get so disturbed, the caribou, it turns out that the herd is
multiplying at a much more rapid rate. The size of the herd has
increased dramatically because of the presence of the pipeline.
So every single excuse that they use, and what is, I think, the
greatest outrage in this whole affair is here we are today, again, the
poor working stiffs of America who have trouble making ends meet, who
run out of checkbook funds before the month runs out because they are
paying more money for gasoline and for fuel oil, their lives could be
made better if we were able to tap into those additional oil reserves
there in Alaska.
They are very close to the existing pipeline infrastructure. It
entails putting in just a short segment of additional pipeline, and
would allow us access to millions and millions of barrels of additional
oil. The increased production would have the potential to lower the
price of oil worldwide and significantly enhance the quality of life
for every American, but yet the Clinton-Gore administration stands up
and says, no, no, with these empty, irrational explanations for their
opposition.
Frankly, I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
This just further confirms in my mind that we are standing up for the
needs of working men and women, and that we must continue to do so. It
is very, very critical that we continue to speak on these issues. I am
happy to yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, just before the gentleman got down, I was just saying
the same thing about my trip to the North Slope, and the observations
the gentleman made about ANWR and the pipeline are right on track.
But the Vice President apparently does not want to open up ANWR
because that will take us away from this which he seeks, a wrenching
transformation of society. I guess in his vision we are all supposed to
suffer a little. Somehow that is for the common good.
That is not the policy that I endorse. Americans are suffering right
now with the failed foreign policy and energy policy that has given us
this bump-up in the gasoline prices. Long-term, Americans are going to
suffer a lot more if we do not reduce our dependence on foreign oil,
and opening up ANWR is the first and most vital step to do that;
furthermore, in addition to that, reducing the ridiculously burdensome
rules and regulations and restrictions that have been imposed on our
people in the oil development industry that is forcing them to go to
Colombia, where there are armed terrorists; to feel that that is a more
favorable climate to do their drilling work than it is right here in
the United States.
So the gentleman is absolutely right, things have been out of hand
and they need to be changed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I want to underscore a very, very important
point highlighted by that poster up there. It is very, very clearly
spelled out in Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance.
I would highly recommend every American purchase a copy of this book
and read it. If they read this book, Al Gore wants the price of oil to
go up. He wants it to go up dramatically. He would like the American
consumer to pay substantially more for a gallon of gasoline. I would
wager that the current price of $1.50 to $1.80 per gallon is not high
enough for Al Gore, because he would like the price to be so high that
people would stop driving and that people would start using mass
transit. He would like to get them out of their cars.
That agenda is very, very clearly spelled out in that book in black
and white. I would assert that if any Republican had ever written a
book with the outrageous assertions that are put forth in that book,
that that Republican candidate for president would be excoriated by the
American news media; that every single outrageous statement in that
book would be attacked and questioned. That candidate could not go
anywhere in the Nation where a reporter would not come up to him and
ask him, how could he make these outrageous assertions?
Let me just read what that says there: ``Minor shifts in policy,
marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws
and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change, these are
all forms of appeasement designed to satisfy the public's desire to
believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of
society will not be necessary.''
How outrageous a statement can we find? It is disparaging of public
opinion. He says, ``designed to satisfy the public's desire,'' as
though that is something we are not supposed to do; as though we are
supposed to have some higher knowledge and calling and that we are
somehow supposed to ignore them, the people who are literally our
bosses, and that we are to do what we think is necessary or what he
thinks is necessary, a wrenching transformation of society.
What is that wrenching transformation? He wants to get every single
one of us out of our cars. He further goes on to claim that the
internal combustion engine is one of the single greatest threats to the
human race. How much more outrageous a statement could anyone ever
have?
I thank the gentleman from California. He has all of the quotes up
there. Within the context of the SEI, the Strategic Environmental
Initiative, a plan of the Vice President's, it ought to be possible to
establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal
of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a
25-year period.
What will a Gore presidency mean? It will mean the implementation or
an attempt to implement that program right there, spelled out in Earth
in the Balance: to completely eliminate the internal combustion engine.
Let me just say that if there were a good replacement for the
internal combustion engine that was totally pollution-free and was
affordable, I think
[[Page H1840]]
every American would support that. Who would not want to be able to
avoid gas stations? Who would not want to drive a car that does not
spew fumes?
But the reality of physics, the reality of modern science today is
the internal combustion engine is the only affordable way for people to
get about, and God forbid we have a situation where politicians from
Washington are trying to completely eliminate the internal combustion
engine, let alone no one other than the President of the United States.
I just want to wholeheartedly congratulate the gentleman from
California on bringing these issues to the forefront. These are the
issues that we should be debating, what are the underlying philosophies
and beliefs of the candidates.
I certainly thank the gentleman, and I would be more than delighted
to do this again with the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman. We will be doing it again soon
as we examine other aspects of the views and the record of Vice
President Al Gore.
____________________