[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5873-S5876]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  OIL

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is appropriate I comment on the 
announced position by our Vice President today on his program to lower 
oil imports and stabilize climate change.
  As identified in the AP summary of June 27, under a program to 
``lower oil import and stabilize climate,'' the Vice President's plan 
for a national energy security and environmental trust fund calls ``for 
diverting more than $80 billion over the next 10 years from projected 
Federal budget surpluses for tax incentives to drive investment in 
energy efficient technologies for transportation and energy use.''
  Notice it doesn't identify any new source of energy to relieve the 
shortage.
  He proposes in a $4.2 billion program to encourage electric 
production from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and $1 
billion for accelerated depreciation for investments and distributed 
power assets.
  But the bulk of the plan is expected to cost $68 billion over the 
next decade and is dedicated to what Gore calls a technology for 
tomorrow, a competitive program designed to provide tax relief, loans, 
grants, bonds, and other financial instruments for emission reduction 
at powerplants and industrial facilities. He doesn't mention one word 
about what kind of energy he proposes we are going to use.
  He indicates we will harness that uniquely American power of 
innovation. Innovation will not go in your gas tank and get you home or 
get you on a vacation. He goes on to say: We will say to the Nation's 
inventors and entrepreneurs, if you invest in these new technologies, 
America will invest in you.
  The Presidential candidate said: Through the power of free market, we 
will take a dramatic step forward for our children's health, which will 
also be a dramatic new step towards a stable climate.
  It is a good deal of rhetoric and sounds pretty good. But in reading 
that, one would come to the conclusion that we simply have not been 
doing anything in the area of renewables. I point out for the Record, 
in the last 5 years this country has spent $1.5 billion for renewable 
energy research and development.
  What have we done over the last two decades? We have spent $17 
billion over the last 20 years in direct spending, in tax incentives 
for renewables. My point is, we are all supportive of renewables, but 
how successful have we been? We have been putting money on them. We 
have been providing tax incentives.
  Our total renewable energy constitutes less than 4 percent of our 
total energy produced. That excludes hydro. Mr. President, 4 percent is 
from biomass, less than 1 percent from solar and wind. Yet most of the 
money in the technology has gone to solar, wind, and biomass.
  So when the Vice President suggests a program of expenditures, some 
$80 billion over the next 10 years, we need relief now--the American 
consumer, the American motorist, the trucker. We see on our cab bills a 
surcharge. We see on the airplane bills a surcharge. We need relief 
now.
  We have spent $1.5 billion for renewable research over the last 20 
years and $17 billion in the same period in direct spending and direct 
incentives for renewables. My point is not to belittle renewables or 
their important role, but the reality is there is simply not enough. At 
less than 4 percent--excluding hydro--they simply are not going to 
provide the relief we need.
  I think it is important we understand the Vice President's programs. 
While we all want to conserve energy, we want to reduce pollution, we 
want to reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil, the facts are in 
many cases we are not reducing the dependence on foreign oil. We are 
increasing. In 1973 and 1974 when we had the Arab oil embargo, we were 
37-percent dependent on imported oil. Today, we are 56 percent on an 
average and we have gone as high as 64 percent.
  In the Vice President's plan, I want to know how he plans to reduce 
the Nation's dependence on foreign oil when the Secretary of Energy is 
out soliciting for greater production from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and 
Mexico.
  He wants to reduce the threat posed by global warming. I think that 
is a challenge for American technology and ingenuity. He wants to 
curtail brownouts by increasing electric grid reliability. What has the 
administration done of late in that regard? They have not worked with 
the Energy Committee, which I chair, on electric restructuring, which 
was designed specifically to address how we were going to provide an 
incentive for more transmission lines to be built so we could ensure 
that we would not have brownouts, how we were going to ensure that we 
would have adequate energy, whether natural gas, coal, oil, or nuclear.
  This administration, right down the line, in its energy policy, 
specifically, has highlighted that it does not have an energy policy. 
We have seen that in our inability to prevail on high-level nuclear 
waste storage. We are one vote short of a veto override.
  It is also important to go in and identify the new initiatives that 
the Vice President has indicated are in his policy statement. One is to 
``extend incentives for natural gas exploration.'' That is actually in 
his statement. But let me refer to a statement our Vice President made 
October 22, 1999, in Rye, NH:

       I will do everything in my power to make sure there is no 
     new drilling--

  No new drilling, Mr. President.

     even in areas already leased by previous administrations.

  I don't know how he can make that statement on October 22, 1999, and 
today and yesterday make the statement that he wants to extend 
incentives for natural gas exploration. Where is it going to come from? 
I certainly don't know where it is going to come from.
  I could go on and on and identify each one of these, where there is 
an inconsistency. But the fact is, his program, at a cost of $75 
billion to $80 billion over 10 years, supposedly from the surplus, is 
not going to do a single thing today to reduce gasoline prices. So what 
are we going to do? How are we going to relate to this? I think it is 
fair to say the Vice President misses the point.
  To borrow a phrase from the Clinton administration: It is the 
gasoline prices, stupid.
  We are paying more for gasoline than at any other time in our 
history. That is the fact. Gasoline and natural gas prices have 
doubled. Do you remember last March, we were paying $10, $11, $12 a 
barrel? Today we are paying $32 a barrel.
  Natural gas, which is assumed to be a godsend, our relief, has gone 
from $2.65 per thousand cubic feet to $4.56 for deliveries in January. 
The American consumer has not felt this, but they will. And there will 
be a reaction. Wait until people start getting their gas bills around 
this country--not just their gas bill but their electric bill, because 
a good deal of the electricity is generated from gas.
  So the Vice President wants to radically change the domestic energy 
industry in the future and he wants to spend $75 billion to $85 billion 
to do it. Think about the conventional sources of energy and the 
administration's position. Coal? They oppose coal. They

[[Page S5874]]

oppose advanced technology, clean coal, expansion of the coal mines, 
expansion of the generation from coal. They have already identified 
nine plants they propose to close and it is a dispute whether the 
managers of these plants have purposely extended the life of the plants 
or, as the management says, in order to maintain the plants to the 
permits they have had to do certain improvements.
  They oppose hydro. Their proposal is to tear down the hydro dams out 
West. There is a tradeoff there. The tradeoff is that you put more 
trucks on the highway if you do away with the barge transportation 
system on the Columbia River. It is not just a few more trucks on the 
highway; it is several hundred thousand because the barges are the most 
effective way to move volumes of tonnage.
  They oppose nuclear--no nuclear. They oppose oil and gas drilling, as 
indicated by the comments of the Vice President.
  I think it is fair to say Vice President Al Gore is OPEC's best 
friend because in reality the only answer they have is to propose to 
import more energy. Where are we getting that energy? Saudi Arabia and 
another country, which I find really gets my attention in the sense of 
being indignant. I guess I might say I am outraged. A few years ago, in 
1991 and 1992, we fought a war in Iraq--Desert Storm. We lost 147 lives 
in that war. We had roughly 427 men and women who were wounded in that 
conflict. We had 23 taken prisoner. Since that time, we have enforced a 
no-fly zone over Iraq. That no-fly zone is an aerial blockade, if you 
will. It has cost the American taxpayer over $10 billion to enforce. 
Yet, from time to time, we launch a sortie to fly over Iraq, where they 
violated the no-fly zone. We drop bombs on various targets near 
Baghdad. This is part of our foreign policy.

  Perhaps I can simplify this. It seems to me we buy their oil. The 
interesting thing is we start out with 50,000 barrels a day. Last year 
it was 300,000 a day. Today it is 750,000 barrels a day. We buy the 
oil, send Saddam Hussein the money. Then we put the oil in our 
airplanes and we go bomb him.
  Maybe it is more complicated than that. There are a few people who 
are unfortunate victims. Saddam Hussein holds up a press release and 
says: The Americans and the British have killed so many Iraqi citizens.
  That obviously rallies his people around him and the vicious circle 
starts again.
  That is where we are getting our greatest single increase of oil--
from Iraq, a country where it wasn't so long ago we were sacrificing 
lives. It is from a tyrant who obviously is using the money he is 
getting from the oil he smuggles to develop his missile technology and 
his biological warfare capability. Clearly, he is up to no good and 
represents a significant threat to the Mideast and Israel as well, 
without question.
  Here we have an administration, a Vice President, who has no real 
relief in sight. He has a 10-year program costing $80 billion that is 
not going to provide the American consumer with any cheaper gasoline 
tomorrow, the next day, next week, next month, or next year. But what 
the Vice President proposes is designing your future but ignoring the 
crisis at the pump. The Vice President wants the Government to tell you 
what energy you are going to use and what price you are going to pay 
for it. That is basically what we are doing with reformulated gasoline.
  We have refineries now customizing gasoline because the Environmental 
Protection Agency has mandated certain formulas in various parts of the 
country. I am not here to debate the merits. But the reality is, it 
costs money. Why does it cost money? For a lot of reasons. We have lost 
some of our regional refiners. We have lost 37 refiners in this 
country, under Clinton-Gore, two administrations, 8 years. The 
refineries have not been replaced. We have not had a new refinery in 
this country for 10 years.
  Why? There are a lot of reasons. One is there is an inadequate return 
on investment. Another reason is that the permitting takes so long. The 
third is the potential Superfund sites; they are just not an attractive 
investment. So we have constricted ourselves, we have put on more 
regulations, and the price is being passed on to the consumer.
  While I applaud the Vice President for recognizing that American 
ingenuity and technology should drive future energy demands, the 
reality is that unless we increase our domestic supply, we are going to 
continue to have shortages and higher prices. The alternatives to that 
are not very bright from the standpoint of any immediate relief.
  I am going to also make a reference to an article in the Washington 
Times, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, June 26, 2000]

                     Occidental Deal Benefits Gores


            Sale of federal oil field boosts family fortune

                            (By Bill Sammon)

       Vice President Al Gore's push to privatize a federal oil 
     field added tens of thousands of dollars to the value of oil 
     stock owned by the Gore family, which has been further 
     enriched by skyrocketing gasoline prices.
       Shares of Occidental Petroleum jumped 10 percent after the 
     company purchased the Elk Hills oil field in California from 
     the federal government in 1998. Mr. Gore, whose family owns 
     at least $500,000 in Occidental stock, recommended the sale 
     as part of his ``reinventing government'' reform package.
       The sale, which constituted the largest privatization of 
     federal land in U.S. history, transformed Occidental from a 
     lackluster financial performer into a dynamic, profit-
     spewing, oil giant. Having instantly tripled its U.S. oil 
     reserves, the company began pumping out vast sums of crude at 
     low cost.
       As the months went by, Occidental was able to sell the oil, 
     which ends up at gasoline retail outlets like Union 76, for 
     more profit. Rising oil prices have significantly improved 
     Occidental's bottom line, said analyst Christopher Stavros of 
     Paine Webber.
       This year, the company posted first quarter revenues of 
     $2.5 billion, or 87 percent higher than a year earlier. 
     That's a bigger increase than at nine of 10 other oil 
     companies listed in a survey that Mr. Gore cited last week as 
     evidence of price gouging.
       The rise in Occidental oil prices, coupled with the 
     acquisition of the Elk Hills field, has paid handsome 
     dividends for the Gore family.
       The vice president recently updated his financial 
     disclosure form to put the value of his family's Occidental 
     stock at between $500,000 and $1 million. Prior to the Elk 
     Hills sale and gasoline price spike, Mr. Gore had listed the 
     value of the stock at between $250,000 and $500,000.
       Gore aides insist the vice president's push to sell Elk 
     Hills does not constitute a conflict of interest. They point 
     out the family's Occidental shares were originally owned by 
     Mr. Gore's father, who died in 1998, leaving the stock in an 
     estate for which the vice president serves as executor.
       Although Mr. Gore continues to list the stock on his 
     financial disclosure forms, aides said the shares are in a 
     trust for the vice president's mother, Pauline.
       ``He doesn't own stock because he's trying to avoid 
     conflicts of interest,'' said Gore spokesman Doug Hattaway. 
     ``He's the executor of the estate, but he's not the trustee 
     of the trust. It's a separate thing.''
       Still, Mr. Gore's recommendation to privatize Elk Hills 
     ended up enriching his mother, who is expected to eventually 
     bequeath the stock to the vice president, her sole heir.
       Last week, Mr. Gore began a concerted effort to blame 
     skyrocketing gasoline prices not only on ``big oil,'' but 
     also on Texas Gov. George W. Bush. Gore aides have emphasized 
     that Mr. Bush once ran several oil-exploration firms and has 
     accepted more campaign contributions from oil companies than 
     the vice president.
       The Texas governor has dismissed the attacks as an attempt 
     to divert attention away from Mr. Gore's energy and 
     environmental policies, which have driven up gasoline prices. 
     Political analysts say the spiraling gas prices could imperil 
     Mr. Gore's presidential bid because they are highest in the 
     Midwest, which he must carry in order to win the White House.
       The political and financial fortunes of the Gore family 
     were established largely with oil money from Occidental's 
     founder, Armand Hammer. Part capitalist and part Communist, 
     Mr. Hammer became the elder Gore's patron more than half a 
     century ago, showering him with riches and nurturing his 
     political career through the House and Senate.
       The elder Gore enthusiastically returned the favors. In the 
     early 1960s, Sen. Gore took to the Senate floor to defend Mr. 
     Hammer against FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who wanted to 
     investigate Mr. Hammer's Soviet ties.
       In 1965, the elder Gore helped Mr. Hammer obtain a visa to 
     Libya, where he opened oil fields that turned Occidental into 
     a multinational powerhouse.
       When the elder Mr. Gore lost his re-election bid in 1970, 
     Mr. Hammer installed him as head of an Occidental subsidiary 
     and gave him a $500,000 annual salary. The man who had begun 
     his career as a struggling schoolteacher in rural Tennessee 
     ended it as a millionaire oil tycoon.
       The younger Gore also benefited from Mr. Hammer's 
     generosity. He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
     annual payments of $20,000 for mineral rights to a parcel of

[[Page S5875]]

     land near the family's homestead in Tennessee that Occidental 
     never bothered mining.
       When the younger Gore first ran for president in 1988, Mr. 
     Hammer promised former Sen. Paul Simon ``any Cabinet spot I 
     wanted'' if he would withdraw from the primary, according to 
     a 1989 book by the Illinois Democrat.
       Mr. Gore and his wife, Tipper, once flew in Mr. Hammer's 
     private jet across the Atlantic Ocean. They hosted Mr. Hammer 
     at several presidential inaugurations and remained close to 
     the oilman until his death in 1990.
       In 1992, when Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was considering 
     Mr. Gore as his running mate, the elder Gore wrote a memo 
     describing his son's ties to Mr. Hammer. The document was 
     designed to provide Mr. Clinton with answers to possible 
     questions from reporters.
       Mr. Hammer's successor at Occidental, Ray Irani, has 
     continued to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars into the 
     campaigns of Mr. Gore and the Democratic Party. For example, 
     two days after spending the night in the Lincoln Bedroom in 
     1996, he cut a check for $100,000 to the Democratic Party.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The title of the article is, ``Occidental Deal 
Benefits Gores.'' I don't begrudge the Gores or any families having any 
investment. What I do begrudge is the realization that the Vice 
President has lashed out and attacked big oil. I am not here to defend 
big oil. As chairman of the Energy Committee, we are having a hearing. 
We are going to invite the various oil companies and refiners to come 
in and explain to us why prices have gone up and what the future is 
likely to hold.
  It is fair to point out Vice President Al Gore has been linking 
George W. Bush to big oil. I am not here to separate that, but as this 
article points out, the Vice President's efforts to push to privatize 
Elk Hills, which was a Federal oilfield in California, added a good 
deal--as a matter of fact, hundreds of thousands of dollars--to the 
Gore family estate fund. This was the Occidental Petroleum that bought 
Elk Hills.
  Occidental's profits soared, and, of course, the Gore family stock in 
the company went from a listing of roughly $250,000 to $500,000, up to 
$1 million, as a consequence of the privatization of Elk Hills. Again, 
I do not begrudge the Vice President and his family making a fair 
return on an appropriate investment. There is absolutely nothing wrong 
with it. But those who live in glass houses should not take baths. In 
this case, that fits the position of the Vice President.
  Finally, I spoke on the floor Friday about the energy crisis we are 
having. I talked about the Clinton-Gore energy policy, or lack of it. 
After I spoke, my good friend from Iowa made some observations and 
statements about energy policy that I think warrant some consideration. 
I am going to take the time, with the indulgence of the occupant of the 
chair, to respond.
  We do two things in Alaska well: We harvest timber, and we harvest 
fish. We do not have a great deal of agriculture potential. We do some 
hay, potatoes, barley, and oats, but we have a short season. Fish and 
timber we do well. So I know something about fish and timber. I do not 
know much about corn. I do know quite a little bit about energy, as 
chairman of the Energy Committee.
  After reading the statement of the Senator from Iowa, I think a few 
of his observations deserve a little closer examination. The Senator 
suggested our investment in ethanol production, in hydrogen, fuel cell 
research, and renewable energy has been minimal. He said:

       We need to get a few million dollars in for the use of 
     hydrogen in fuel cells and fuel cell research.

  Again, the reference I made earlier to what we have expended speaks 
for itself. What we have expended in these areas is truly not 
insignificant. It is a major expenditure in the area of over $20 
billion overall in renewables. As a consequence of that, indeed, the 
Senator from Iowa would agree, we have been expending a good deal in 
these areas of promoting renewables.
  As a member of the Senate renewable and energy efficiency caucus, I 
am a supporter of ethanol production, hydrogen, fuel cell research, and 
renewable energy. To support hydrogen research, I moved through my 
committee and into law the Hydrogen Future Act which is Public Law 104-
271. It was originally introduced in the House by Bob Walker and 
authorized the hydrogen research, development, and demonstrations 
programs of the Department of Energy.
  In the nearly 5 years that have passed since that time, we have spent 
over $100 million on hydrogen and fuel cell research in the Department 
of Energy. Over the past 5 years, we have spent another $1.5 billion 
for renewable energy research and development, $330 million of which 
has gone for biomass research, including ethanol.
  To support renewable wind energy, I have supported as a member of the 
Finance Committee a production tax credit for investments in wind 
energy.
  To support renewable biomass energy, I have supported the repeal of 
the ``closed loop'' rule for the biomass energy tax credit in an effort 
to boost biomass energy production, including ethanol.
  I am also a cosponsor of Senator Lugar's biofuels research bill, S. 
935, which passed this body.
  To support the deployment of distributed renewable energy, I have 
worked to make Alaska a test bed for many of these technologies. Alaska 
has scores of small communities that are not on a consolidated electric 
grid.
  We are exploring the use of wind turbines, fuel cells, and other 
technologies to displace the expensive diesel fuel currently used in 
these communities because these are the technologies that will make 
sense in a developing world of energy.
  These are all areas that are very important in the effort to decrease 
our imports of foreign energy and protect our environment, and I do 
support them personally, as well as in my position as chairman of the 
Energy Committee.
  Senator Harkin's contention that we ``need to get a few million 
dollars'' for research in these areas suggests we are not making these 
investments when, in fact, we are. I did not want any of my colleagues 
or America to be misled.
  Talking about gasoline prices again, Senator Harkin also encouraged 
me, as chairman of the Energy Committee, to subpoena oil company 
executives, to put them before my committee and start asking the 
``tough questions'' in an effort to get to the bottom of the high 
prices.
  Indeed, my staff and I had already been planning and have planned a 
hearing on gasoline prices to include representatives from the industry 
and the administration. We made that decision several days ago. That 
hearing, as announced, will be held on Thursday, July 13, at 9:30 a.m.
  At that time, we plan to explore issues of gasoline supply problems 
and ask if deliverability, transportation, refining, and blending 
resources are adequate to supply our near-term and long-term gasoline 
needs. It is a matter of supply and demand. The supply is down, the 
demand is up.
  But it may interest my friend from Iowa to know that subpoenas are 
unlikely to be necessary for the oil companies or their 
representatives. When our committee asks them to appear, they appear. 
They answer the questions asked of them, and I am not anticipating any 
problem with the oil companies responding to our questions.
  On the other hand, I think you would agree, sometimes we do have 
problems with the administration. Secretary Richardson recently found 
it inconvenient to appear before our committee on the Los Alamos 
matter. So there is some doubt he will show up to answer, as Senator 
Harkin puts it, the tough questions.
  We are considering asking the EPA Administrator, who is responsible 
pretty much for the reformulation of gasoline around the country, where 
the refineries are now customizing, and that would be EPA Administrator 
Carol Browner. There is some question she will appear. She may be 
worried the reformulated gasoline requirements have, in fact, 
balkanized the market and driven prices up. That might make her 
inclined not to attend.
  While the Senator from Iowa said in his remarks Friday that 
reformulated gasolines were ``not the problem,'' I am personally not so 
sure of that. Consider the following facts: Under the Environmental 
Protection Agency regulations, fuel made for consumption in Oregon is 
not suitable for California's consumption. Fuel made for distribution 
in western Maryland cannot be sold in Baltimore. Areas such as Chicago 
and Detroit are islands in the fuel system, requiring special 
``designer'' gasolines. Gasoline sold in Springfield cannot be sold in 
Chicago.

[[Page S5876]]

  A recent Energy Information Agency report observed that an eastern 
U.S. pipeline operator handles 38 different grades of gasoline, 7 
grades of kerosene, and 16 grades of home heating oil and diesel fuel.
  Between Chicago and St. Louis, a 300-mile distance--think of this--
four different grades of gasoline are required. Is that necessary? I am 
not here to debate that point, but I am here to tell you that it all 
costs money and the consumer pays for it. It is estimated that 
reformulated gasoline costs an average of 50 cents more a gallon for 
the reasons I have outlined.
  The predictable result is refiners lack the flexibility to move 
supplies around the country to respond to local or regional shortages. 
Again, I advise the President that 37 refineries have closed. No new 
ones have opened. Why? I think the answer is obvious.
  These are among the questions we will explore in our hearing, and I 
hope we will have good cooperation from the industry and good 
cooperation from the Clinton-Gore administration.
  There are a few things we do know before the hearing.
  Even before we convene the hearing, here is what we already know. 
Americans are now paying more for their gasoline than at any other time 
in history. Our dependency on foreign oil is at an all-time high--
higher than any other time in history.
  Again, we fought a war 9 years ago over threats to our oil supply. I 
have indicated the loss of life we have had, the prisoners who were 
taken, and those who were wounded.
  Further, domestic oil production is down 17 percent since the start 
of the Clinton-Gore administration.
  I think it is important for Members to recognize we have a little 
history to indicate why we are in this predicament.
  We will almost assuredly have brownouts this summer when energy usage 
exceeds energy supply. That is because the Clinton-Gore administration 
has actively curtailed domestic energy production in all forms in 
virtually all areas of this country.
  For 8 years, President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been 
warned that our foreign oil consumption was increasing and our domestic 
oil production was decreasing. One can only assume they chose to ignore 
the warnings, and now we have record prices for gas and home heating 
oil.
  This is a problem of leadership. Both the President and the Vice 
President and my good friend, Senator Harkin from Iowa in a speech, 
suggested that the oil companies are to blame. It is the blame game 
played around Washington, DC, all the time. And maybe the oil companies 
are partially responsible. I am not ruling that out.
  But leadership is not assessing blame. Leadership is about preventing 
the crisis before it happens. Sadly, the crisis is here, and Americans 
are paying the price. Perhaps even worse, the most powerful Nation on 
Earth--the most powerful Nation in the history of the world--is at the 
mercy of a handful of oil-producing nations because we are not 
producing our own domestic resources.
  Where would we get them? We have the Rocky Mountain overthrust belt 
all around Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, and other areas. We have the 
OCS off the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi, and my 
State of Alaska. We have the resources here. There is absolutely no 
question about it. We have the technology. We also have an 
administration that would much rather send the Secretary of Energy 
overseas to beg for increased production from OPEC and from Saddam 
Hussein than generate domestic oil production here at home where we are 
assured we would have a continued supply. We could keep the jobs here 
and the dollars here.
  If we were willing to fight for oil supply in the Persian Gulf, we 
ought to be willing to drill for it domestically here in the United 
States.
  I talked about what the Vice President has said about this. I have 
noted the Vice President's sudden interest, as expressed on his 
campaign trail, about the prices paid by gasoline consumers, and again, 
his suggestions that the oil companies are to blame.
  Surely this cannot be the same Vice President Gore who cast the 
tiebreaking vote for higher gasoline taxes in this Senate body.
  Surely this is not the same Vice President who wrote in his book, 
``Earth in the Balance,'' that: ``Higher taxes on fossil fuels . . . is 
one of the logical first steps in changing our policies in a manner 
consistent with a more responsible approach to the environment.''
  Perhaps the Vice President doesn't have to buy gas as the rest of us, 
but someone needs to tell him that raising taxes on gasoline only hurts 
hard-working Americans.
  In summary, to conclude, I think the energy policy of the Clinton-
Gore administration can be summed up in a single word. That word is 
``no''--no domestic oil exploration or production, no use of coal, no 
use of nuclear power, no use of hydroelectric power, no to increasing 
supplies of natural gas, and no to new oil refineries.
  We have a better idea; that is, the National Energy Security Act of 
2000, introduced by Senator Lott, myself, and others because it 
encourages domestic production, energy efficiency, renewable energy, 
and other energy resources, with the goal of decreasing our oil imports 
to a level below 50 percent.
  We have a goal in our energy policy, in our Republican plan. Ask the 
Clinton-Gore administration what their energy policy is, what their 
goal is. As I see it, it is an $80 billion expenditure on renewables 
coming about in 10 years, when today, if you exclude hydro, only 4 
percent of our energy comes from renewables. I wish there were more.
  Anyway, this is the kind of balanced approach that I think will keep 
energy supplies stable and affordable for America. I urge my colleagues 
to support the National Energy Security Act of 2000, which was raised 
here on the floor the other day and the leader assures me is pending.
  I thank the occupant of the chair and the clerks for prevailing at 
this late hour. I have been asked to close the Senate today. So with 
their indulgence, I will proceed. My reason for keeping you here 
tonight, obviously so late, is the inability to get floor time in 
morning business because of the accelerated schedule. So I hope you 
will understand.

                          ____________________