[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7145-S7150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to chat a little bit about 
energy this evening because there are several misconceptions relative 
to the position that the United States is currently in relative to the 
high gasoline prices that we have been subjected to in the last several 
months.
  First of all, the bad news is, there is no relief in sight. What we 
currently have is a situation where, simply, the available refining 
capacity associated with gasoline production and the demand is such 
that the two lines are almost parallel. In other words, our ability to 
produce gasoline and the current consumption of gasoline are about 
equal. So as a consequence, in reality, we are drawing down our 
reserves. This is at a time when normally our reserves would be 
substantially higher.
  There is a reason for this. I think the American people should 
understand and appreciate reality because what we have is a situation 
where our refining capacity has been reduced dramatically over the last 
8 years. We have lost about 37 refineries in the United States during 
the last 10-year period. There has not been a new refinery built in the 
United States in almost two decades.
  What we have, then, is a concentration of our existing refineries 
operating at near full capacity, producing the requirements associated 
with the public's demand for gasoline, coupled with the problems 
associated with meeting the Clean Air Act, which mandates certain 
reformulated gasolines in various parts of the country.
  We had testimony before the committee of which I am chairman, the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, earlier last week. One of the 
principals with the Environmental Protection Agency identified that the 
Environmental Protection Agency, under their interpretation of the 
Clean Air Act, has mandated as many as nine specific cuts of 
reformulated gasolines that have a regional application around the 
country. That means in California you have one type of reformulated 
gasoline. You have another type in Chicago. You may have another type 
in Atlanta.
  These have gone into effect as a consequence of the June 1 new 
mandates for reformulated gasoline in various parts of the country. 
What this means is, the refineries have to separate and move and store 
separately these different cuts of gasoline. The cost, of course, is 
significant from the standpoint of what the American public has to pay.
  We have seen, since the spiraling price of crude oil over the last 
year--where a year ago prices were $11, $12, $13, $14 a barrel--an 
average price of nearly $30 a barrel this year.
  The difficulty we experience is, having become so dependent on 
imported

[[Page S7146]]

oil, currently imported oil is running at 56 percent of total U.S. 
consumption. As we look at our neighbors in OPEC, we recognize that we 
have an increasing dependence on their resources. In other words, they 
control the supply and we are the market. As a consequence, when we 
have significant demand increases of consumption, we go to OPEC, as our 
Secretary of Energy has done from time to time, encouraging more 
production.
  However, OPEC seems to have learned from experience. They have 
developed a strategy internally where they have set a price floor and a 
price ceiling. The floor evidently is $22 a barrel of oil; the ceiling 
is $28 a barrel. In recent days, there has been an anticipation that 
OPEC will increase production, today we have the president of OPEC 
indicating that since the price fell temporarily below $28 a barrel, 
OPEC was not going to increase production and was going to review the 
matter in another 20 days.
  The American public should be aware that we are caught between a 
floor-to-ceiling $22 to $28. The American public should be aware that 
as a consequence of OPEC's internal discipline, there is no relief in 
sight for a reduction of gas prices of anything appreciable. There will 
be perhaps some regional reductions as we get the reformulated gasoline 
under control in various parts of the country.
  It is also important to recognize that one of the most significant 
additives, MTBE, has been dismissed as contrary to the health of the 
public in the sense that this reformulated portion does get into the 
water table. As a consequence, we are substituting ethanol for MTBE, 
which is a grain and agriculture product that enjoys a partial subsidy 
but nevertheless is a satisfactory additive to make reformulated 
gasoline to meet the market demands in the various regions of the 
country.
  The point I want to make is that on gasoline, our demand is up. Our 
production is relatively stagnant, even though we are producing at the 
maximum capacity for our refineries. We have a situation where we are 
actually pulling down our reserves. For many Members of this body, 
particularly in the Northeast corridor, who are concerned legitimately 
about the high cost of heating oil and the awareness that there might 
not be adequate reserves being built up during the summer to meet the 
demand if there is a cold winter, they justifiably should be concerned. 
What we should be doing now is dropping off substantially our 
production of gasoline and building up reserves for heating oil. But 
that is not the case. Our reserves for heating oil are at an all-time 
low.
  We have had consideration from the Clinton administration and some 
Members to set up some kind of a heating oil strategic reserve. This is 
rather an interesting dilemma, if you walk through it and understand 
it. It doesn't necessarily create the relief we want and may suggest 
that the Government is involving itself in the manipulation of pricing 
of petroleum products.
  Let me cite an example of what I fear. Currently, the thought is that 
there will be an arrangement made by the Department of Energy to 
acquire up to 2 million barrels of heating oil reserve somewhere in the 
Northeast, perhaps in the New York City area, where they can lease 
tankage. The tradeoff on where the oil would come from would be crude 
oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Louisiana. That oil, of 
course, is not refined. If we take an equivalent of 2 million barrels 
plus, because we want to have value for value, and take the crude oil 
out of SPR and refine it, we are offsetting the refining capacity of 
that refiner of making gasoline or perhaps heating oil with the 
substitution of the oil from SPR.
  That is purchased by the Government, put in storage, and sits in 
storage until such time as circumstances dictate the trigger be pulled 
and the oil released. Then the question is, What is the appropriate 
triggering mechanism? Are we going to trigger the release of based on 
the price of heating oil, or are we going to do it as a consequence of 
a supply shortage?
  Last year, we had a critical situation in the Northeast but did not 
actually have anyone go without heating oil. What happened last year is 
the reserves were very low, but there was enough to meet the demand. 
This year, the fear, rightly so, for many in the Northeast is that 
there might not be enough fuel oil to meet the demand if the winter 
gets cold. The dilemma is, if the Government is putting in 2 million 
barrels and going to basically store it, then is the industry that 
ordinarily would build up an inventory and tie up its cash-flow for a 
period of time going to do that, knowing that the Federal Government is 
doing the same thing? It is going to be a business decision, but it is 
going to be interesting to see what the private sector does.
  It might be simply a tradeoff. Why should the private sector build up 
an inventory when it knows the Government has an inventory? In the end, 
is there any more fuel oil left for the Northeast corridor if indeed 
there is a cold winter?
  I bring this out to point to the difficulty we are having in coming 
to grips with the reality that we have a greater demand for oil than we 
have of productive capability. We have become dependent again on our 
neighbors in OPEC--and not just the 10 official OPEC members. One of 
our other associates is a gentleman by the name of Saddam Hussein, who 
is the head of Iraq.
  Many people forget that we fought a war over there just a decade ago. 
We lost 147 lives; we had 427 Americans who were wounded; we had 23 
taken prisoner. Today, Iraq is the fastest growing source of oil for 
the United States. Isn't that rather ironic? I can't understand why 
Americans are not indignant over the fact that we are looking to this 
tyrant, who we know is selling oil, smuggling it out, generating funds 
for missile development--there was just an article today relative to 
the testing of a new missile by Iraq--developing his biological 
capability. This man is a bad man. He is up to no good. Yet the United 
States is looking to him to bail us out for our supply of oil. It is 
absolutely ironic that we would look to Saddam Hussein.
  August 2 will be the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's invasion of 
Kuwait. What a difference a decade makes. Let's do a little comparison. 
I think the American people should wake up and be a little sensitive to 
the fact that we have lifted embargoes on technologies that would allow 
him to increase his refining capacity. The U.N. no longer does any 
inspections of what is going on in Iraq or where his oil is going or 
whether it is going for the Food for Peace Program.
  Ten years ago, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait to stimulate higher oil 
prices and to build up his war machine. We know that. That was 10 years 
ago. Now high oil prices yield Saddam Hussein $75 million a day under a 
legal U.N. oil-for-food program and $2 million a day in illegal 
smuggling revenue which is used to build up his war machine.
  Mr. President, we know this for a fact. We know what he is doing with 
the funds he gets from smuggling oil. Ten years ago, Saddam Hussein was 
proved to be the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. As of 
today, it has cost thousands of lives, some $10 billion of U.S. 
taxpayers' money, and 150,000 sorties, where we have flown to enforce 
our no-fly zone. It has cost the American taxpayers $10 billion to 
fence in Saddam Hussein.
  Saddam Hussein is still the biggest threat to peace in the Mideast 
and certainly the biggest threat to Israel. I can't understand why 
there is not more of an awakening of the fact that we are supporting 
this tyrant. We are becoming more dependent upon him and we are playing 
into his hands.
  Where is the logic? Where is the American foreign policy? I can 
simplify foreign policy with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq in one 
single syllogism. We buy his oil, we send him our dollars, we put his 
oil in our airplanes, and fly over and bomb him. He puts out a press 
release saying how many people we injured or killed, they rally around 
Saddam Hussein, and the process starts all over again.
  Is this the foreign policy of the United States that we support? Or 
would we rather ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist? I think the 
latter is probably the case. It is absolutely incredible that we don't 
face up to what is happening and the fact that we are condoning this 
action. Ten years ago, Saddam Hussein was using oil revenue to purchase 
weapons of mass destruction. Now, Saddam Hussein--the same guy--is 
using his oil revenue to purchase weapons of mass destruction. We

[[Page S7147]]

know this. They just tested them yesterday. He has the ability, with 
the advanced weaponry he has developed, to extend the missile clear to 
Israel.
  Ten years ago, the United States purchased less than 400,000 barrels 
a day from Iraq--before the war started. Now the United States is 
purchasing 750,000 barrels a day. Ten years ago, the United States 
began to import more than 50 percent of our oil, and OPEC became an 
important voice in U.S. energy policy. Now, the United States, as I 
have indicated, is importing more than 56 percent of our oil. With 
Iraq, the fastest-growing supplier, Saddam Hussein has become an 
important voice--imagine that--in our U.S. energy policy. Saddam 
Hussein may have lost the war, but he certainly seems to have won the 
peace. With its energy policy--or lack thereof--the Clinton-Gore 
administration has snatched defeat from the jaws of the gulf war 
victory. I will repeat that. Saddam Hussein may have lost the war, but 
he has won the peace. With its energy policy, or lack of an energy 
policy, the Clinton-Gore administration has snatched defeat from the 
jaws of the gulf victory.
  We are very much dependent on this source, and the likelihood of 
reducing it is not going to take place until we send a clear message as 
to what our energy policy will be. Now, the alternatives aren't really 
very complex. We either import more and pay the price, or we commit to 
development and exploration of our energy resources here in the United 
States. Wyoming, Montana, Colorado--the overthrust belt--have a 
tremendous potential for oil and gas development, as does Illinois, 
Pennsylvania, and numerous other States. We have withdrawn about 64 
percent of the public land in the United States and exempted it from 
exploration, let alone production.
  Now, we have a tremendous potential in OCS areas--off the shores of 
Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and other States, some of which don't want 
to develop OCS areas off their States. That is their own business. But 
for those who do they should be allowed to do so. It is kind of 
interesting because our Vice President made a statement in Louisiana 
that if he is elected President, he will make an attempt to buy back 
OCS oil leases and cancel other leases.
  Mr. President, that leaves one with the question: Where is this 
energy going to come from? We have energy coming from my State of 
Alaska. We have been producing 20 to 25 percent of our domestic crude 
oil for the last twenty years. We have the potential for a major 
discovery in a small sliver of the Arctic area, the Coastal Plain. Let 
me explain how small that sliver is. In the general area of the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge, there are 19 million acres. That is as big as the size 
of the State of South Carolina. Half of that has been reserved in 
perpetuity as a wilderness. Nearly the other half has been set aside in 
a refuge, also in perpetuity, subject to the Congress, who are the only 
ones that can change it. Out of those 19 million acres, 1.5 million 
acres was left out to the discretion of Congress back in 1980. That was 
done as a consequence of the belief that this was the area where a 
likely discovery could be made.

  Well, there have been a lot of estimates. When you look for oil, you 
never know where you are going to find it or how much you are going to 
find. If you are going to find it in Alaska, you better find a lot of 
it; otherwise, you can't afford to produce it. Recent estimates go as 
high as 16 billion barrels of recoverable reserves. That is based on 
the latest discovery and production technology, even though much of 
this area has not been made available for 3D seismic evaluation because 
it is under the Department of Interior. Sixteen billion barrels would 
be as much as what we would import from Saudi Arabia for a 30-year 
period. So it is a substantial amount.
  What we need to do in this country--and we need to do it now; the 
longer we wait, the more dependent we are going to be on OPEC--is to 
set a clear and decisive policy toward a commitment to reduce our 
dependence on imports. That is what we have done, along with Senator 
Lott and several colleagues, in the legislation we introduced, which is 
the National Energy Security Act of 2000. We have adopted a goal to 
guide our energy policy, and the goal is to reduce our dependence on 
imported oil to less than 50 percent by the end of the decade. When you 
have that kind of objective, you have an opportunity to send a clear 
message.
  We have to send a clear message. We have to send a message to Saudi 
Arabia and to Kuwait, and we have to send it to Venezuela and Mexico, 
that we are committed to reducing our dependence and we are committed 
to increase exploration and production here in the United States. I 
admire the commitment of America's environmental community who, for the 
most part, oppose domestic oil production and exploration in the United 
States. But I remind them that we have the technology, the know-how, 
the American can-do spirit, and we can make the impact of development 
much smaller here and keep the jobs and the dollars at home, as opposed 
to the exploration that occurs in other areas of the world where they 
don't have the environmental safeguards. So what kind of a tradeoff is 
it? Is it better for the environment that we do it right here at home, 
or if we depend on those countries that don't have that internal 
discipline and consideration for the environment?
  The industry says that if, indeed, they find oil in this sliver of 
the Arctic, out of the 1.5 million acres, which is part of the 19 
million acres, which is the size of South Carolina, the footprint would 
be somewhere between 1,500 to 2,000 acres. My friends who are in the 
farming business know what kind of a farm a 1,500-acre or 2,000-acre 
farm is. The drilling and exploration would be done in the wintertime. 
The roads would be ice roads. There would be no permanent community. 
There would be a compatibility with the caribou. We have addressed all 
the issues, and we have proven it in Prudhoe Bay, where 20 percent of 
the crude oil has come from for the last two decades. But that was old 
technology; we have new technology now. Many don't want us to have an 
opportunity to find out if indeed the oil is there, and the oil is 
there in the reserves that we have.
  Some people more or less dismiss it, and say, well, we are in a 
situation with oil. Don't worry. We have lots of natural gas.
  As chairman of the Energy Committee, I have a little bit of a 
different view about the situation with natural gas in this country. 
Let me start out by reminding you and the American people that there is 
a rude awakening coming with regard to natural gas. It is going to 
affect Americans in their heating bills. It is going to affect 
Americans in their electric bills.
  This is what has happened. A year ago in this country the price for 
natural gas was around $2.30. Six months ago, it was $2.56. Deliveries 
in January are $4.30. I know many utilities are going to their 
commissions advising them of rate increases. This hasn't hit the 
American public yet. If we thought the hue and cry on the increased 
price of heating oil or gasoline was going to bring down the roof, wait 
until you hear the cry of the American people this winter when they get 
their gas bills.
  How did this come about? Somebody said, well, we have 160 trillion 
cubic feet in reserve. That was last year. We have 150 trillion cubic 
feet this year. We are, again, pulling down our reserves faster than we 
are finding new reserves. When you do that, you deplete your base.
  What also is happening to put further pressure is the electric 
industry is turning to gas turbines for power generation--turbines. The 
permitting process is much easier and much cheaper than for building a 
coal-fired plant.
  We have a situation where we are coming to grips. The American people 
aren't aware of it. They are not reflecting on it because it doesn't 
really hit them like they were hit in 1973 or 1974 when we had the Arab 
oil embargo. Some people in this body might be old enough to remember. 
We had gasoline lines around the block. The public was outraged: How 
could this happen in this country? How could we have these kinds of 
shortages? We did. The public reacted. We played the blame game and 
pointed the finger at everybody and everything. Gasoline and oil prices 
had no relief in sight.
  I can guarantee it, natural gas has spiraled. It is escalating with 
no relief in sight. How did we get in this situation? One reason is we 
haven't had an energy policy for a long, long time.

[[Page S7148]]

  What is our energy policy? Clearly, it is to provide more imports of 
oil into this country as opposed to developing domestic oil reserves. 
What is our gas policy on natural gas? We have withdrawn from public 
lands areas that ordinarily would be available for exploration--64 
percent of the overthrust belt, as I have indicated.
  What have we done with regard to nuclear power? Twenty percent of our 
power generation is nuclear energy. We can't pass a bill in this body 
to deal with the waste. We can't override the President's veto. We are 
one vote short to address what to do with our nuclear waste. There 
hasn't been a nuclear plant built in this country in 20 years. There is 
not going to be. They are building them in China. They are building 
them in Taiwan. They are building them in France. France is 76 percent 
dependent on nuclear energy. They don't have air quality problems. They 
are never going to be held hostage by the Mideast again. They learned 
that in 1973.
  We don't have a policy on oil other than to import more. We don't 
have a policy for encouraging domestic gas exploration. We don't have a 
policy to address what we are going to do with our nuclear industry let 
alone resolve the nuclear waste problem. We have lots of coal. Are we 
building coal plants? Absolutely not. The permitting time for coal 
plants puts them out of reach of reality. There are none being built.
  Tell me from where the energy is going to come. There are many who 
say, well, we should find alternative energy. I am all for it. But you 
name it.

  We have spent over $70 billion in the last two decades subsidizing 
the development of alternative energy. What is it? Solar, biomass, 
wind? Some places in my State, such as Barrow, don't get much daylight 
in the wintertime. It is dark all the time. Sometimes the wind doesn't 
blow. These alternatives are fine. They have a place. We have to 
encourage them. But they are not going to take the place of oil and gas 
in the near future. By the time we are through evaluating our 
alternatives, it is not a very bright picture because the alternatives 
just aren't there. The alternatives provide us with about 4 percent of 
our current energy mix.
  We have hydro. I have not spoken of hydro. It is a renewable 
resource. There is no question about it. But this administration 
curiously enough has identified hydro as nonrenewable. I grew up in 
Ketchikan, AK. We have a couple hundred inches of rain a year. I 
remember one year we had 226 inches of rain. We have a few little 
hydrodams.
  To suggest rainfall and hydro are not renewable is beyond me. But, 
nevertheless, the administration proposes to remove some of the dams 
from the Columbia and Snake Rivers to rebuild the fish runs. 
Unfortunately, some time ago decisions were made, rightly or wrongly, 
with regard to the tradeoff on posterity. It is just that simple. You 
are going to have your natural runs of fish. You are not going to have 
dams. But they trade it consciously or unconsciously for the 
agricultural industry associated and what dams those rivers could do 
with benefits in low-cost power to the residents of the area. Whether 
you have an aluminum plant, whether you have Boeing, whether you have 
tremendous agricultural productivity out of land that was once desert, 
they traded those things off. You can't want it both ways. You want to 
rebuild the natural runs. Most of the biologists will tell you that you 
can enhance runs by bringing in new stock, if your ability to rebuild 
the native runs is pretty remote. Some people suggest it is not 
possible.
  But if you tear down the dams, there is another tradeoff. How much 
barge traffic that moves the grain and commerce up and down the 
Columbia and Snake Rivers is going to go back on the highways? It is 
all going to go back, isn't it? Somebody said there will be 700,000 
more trucks on our highways, if you tear down the dams. What kind of a 
tradeoff is that?
  There is no energy policy identifiable with this administration. It 
is that simple--no oil, no domestic exploration, no hydro, no nuclear, 
no coal. That is the reality of where we are. It is a pretty bleak 
picture.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement 
from Richard Butler from the Washington Post dated Monday, July 17, 
entitled ``Guess Who's Back.'' It is our friend, Saddam Hussein. It is 
entitled ``Saddam Hussein is reconstituting his capability to deploy 
weapons of mass destruction.''
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
statement that came out of Reuters today entitled ``Venezuelan OPEC 
president Ali Rodriguez said Tuesday there would be no oil production 
rise at the end of this month because prices have fallen below the 
upper limit of OPEC's price target ban.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Washington Post, Monday, July 17, 2000]

                            Guess Who's Back

                          (By Richard Butler)

       So you thought Saddam Hussein was out of your life? Sorry--
     he's back, manufacturing the weapons of mass destruction with 
     which he threatens the Iraqi people, his neighbors and, by 
     extension, the safety of the world.
       Two separate developments have returned Saddam Hussein to 
     the headlines. Earlier this month the administration revealed 
     that its satellites had detected Iraq test-firing Al-Samoud 
     missiles, home-grown, smaller versions of the Scuds last used 
     against Israel during the 1990 Gulf War. The chief of U.S. 
     Central Command, Gen. Tony Zinni, said that the range of the 
     Al-Samoud easily could be increased.
       The administration also revealed that Saddam Hussein has 
     been hiding between 20 and 30 Russian Scuds as well as 
     working through front companies outside Iraq to acquire the 
     machine tools needed to build more missiles.
       None of this is new. In my last report as executive 
     chairman of UNSCOM, the agency charged with disarming Saddam, 
     I warned the U.N. Security Council about Iraq's missile-
     development activities. That was almost two years ago, just 
     before Iraq shut down all international arms control and 
     monitoring efforts. I've also publicly detailed Iraq's 
     refusal to yield or account for its holdings of at least 500 
     tons of fuel usable only by Scud-type missiles. Iraqi 
     officials told me that a complete accounting for this fuel 
     was unnecessary because, after all, Iraq had no Scud 
     missiles. I disagreed, stating that the reverse was true: As 
     long as Iraq refused to yield the fuel, it clearly had 
     concealed Scuds or planned to acquire or build them.
       Presumably unconnected with the administration's revelation 
     but simultaneous with it, former UNSCOM inspector Scott 
     Ritter, in an article in Arms Control Today, claimed that 
     Iraq is ``qualitatively disarmed.'' He failed to offer any 
     new information or evidence to support this dubious concept.
       There were two levels of deception in Iraqi dealings with 
     UNSCOM: concealment and false declarations on the weapons 
     Iraq was prepared to put in play in the disarmament process. 
     When Ritter worked for me, he was in charge of the UNSCOM 
     unit responsible for finding and destroying the concealed 
     weapons, and he was vilified by Iraqi leaders as their major 
     persecutor. Now he says he has had private conversations with 
     unspecified Iraqi officials that have persuaded him they are 
     ``qualitatively disarmed'' and will accept a new monitoring 
     program if the Security Council first lifts all sanctions 
     against Iraq.
       The facts are clear and alarming, and they do not support 
     this assertion. Iraq has been free of any arms control or 
     monitoring regime for almost two years, a consequence of the 
     breakdown of consensus among the permanent members of the 
     Security Council. Now Saddam Hussein is reconstituting his 
     capability to deploy weapons of mass destruction. I've seen 
     evidence of Iraq, attempts to acquire missile-related tools 
     and, even more chilling, of steps the Iraqis have taken to 
     reassemble their nuclear weapons design team. After the Gulf 
     War, experts assessed Iraq was only six months from testing 
     an atomic bomb. It retains that know-how. It also has rebuilt 
     its chemical and biological weapons manufacturing facilities.
       If the United States is serious about addressing the threat 
     current developments raise, it should insist to its fellow 
     permanent members of the Security Council that there be a new 
     consensus on enforcing arms control in Iraq. Selective 
     revelations such as those recently issued by the 
     administration need to be accompanied by a robust policy 
     within the Security Council, making clear particularly to 
     Russia and France that the United States is not prepared to 
     accept their patronage of Saddam Hussein.
                                  ____

       Caracas, July 18 (Reuters)--Venezuelan OPEC President Ali 
     Rodriguez said Tuesday there would be no oil production rise 
     at the end of this month, because prices had fallen below the 
     upper limit of OPEC's price target band.
       Speaking to reporters on his arrival in Venezuela after a 
     tour of OPEC countries, the Venezuelan energy and mines 
     minister said the mechanism to trigger an increase in 
     production depended on the OPEC oil basket price staying 
     above $28 a barrel for 20 consecutive days.
       The price of OPEC's basket of crude fell to $27.46 a barrel 
     on Monday, according to the OPEC secretariat in Vienna.
       Asked what would result from the fall in the basket price, 
     Rodriguez replied ``the 20-day process will begin again.''

[[Page S7149]]

       OPEC's news agency carried a report on Monday quoting 
     Rodriguez as asking other members to prepare for an output 
     increase of 500,000 barrels a day if prices did not fall.
       Asked whether he planned to consult with fellow OPEC 
     members on a possible increase, Rodriguez replied ``that does 
     not require consultation,'' By he added there is unanimous 
     consent in the cartel for an OPEC summit in Caracas in 
     September.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, that is the president of OPEC.
  The article further states:

       Speaking to reporters on his arrival in Venezuela after a 
     tour of OPEC countries, the Venezuelan energy and mines 
     minister said the mechanism to trigger an increase in 
     production depended on the OPEC oil basket price staying 
     above $28 a barrel for 20 consecutive days.

  Our Secretary of Energy made a deal when he was over there several 
months ago and petitioned the Saudis for greater production. That was 
at the time we were first beginning to feel the price escalation. He 
did generate a commitment for another 500,000 barrels of oil.
  However, the American public and the American press made the 
assumption we were going to get all that increased production. We only 
got 16 percent. That is our allocation in this country. Mr. President, 
16 percent of 500,000 barrels is not enough to fuel Washington, DC, in 
1 day. It is a drop in the bucket. Other areas of the world are 
recovering, including Asia, Japan, and they are increasing in their 
demand for oil.
  In any event, speaking to reporters, the Venezuela Energy and Mines 
Minister says the mechanism to trigger an increase depended on the OPEC 
oil basket price staying above $28 a barrel for 20 consecutive days. He 
further says the price of OPEC's basket of crude oil fell to $27.46 a 
barrel on Monday, according to the OPEC secretary in Vienna. Asked what 
the result from the fall in the basket price would be, Rodriguez 
replied: The 20-day process will begin again.
  So we are on another 20 days; no relief for at least 20 days. They 
are not going to produce more oil, so the price will stay around $30, 
where it is currently.
  OPEC's news agency carried a report on Monday quoting Rodriguez and 
other members to prepare for an output increase of 500,000 barrels a 
day if prices did not fall. Well, they fell. And asked whether he 
planned to consult with fellow OPEC members on a possible increase, 
Rodriguez replied that does not require consultation. He added that 
there is unanimous support in the cartel for an OPEC summit in Caracas 
in September. Remember where you heard it first. Right out of Caracas, 
from the president of OPEC, there is no relief in sight until 
September.
  Maybe we ought to go out and fill up our tanks today because it might 
go up tomorrow.
  There we are. A capsule, if you will, of the dilemma with regard to a 
lack of an energy policy, where we are on gasoline, where we are in 
heating oil, where we are in natural gas. Who bears the responsibility 
for this? I think it is fair to say, at times this is a partisan body 
of some regard, I think we have seen from time to time situations where 
we point the finger and don't want to bear the responsibility.
  At the risk of generating some reaction from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, I think it is fair I point out some 
inconsistencies with regard to the position of our Vice President. As 
we look at the coming election and the role of the candidate on energy 
and on the environment, I think we have to ask where the candidates 
really stand. I will give one person's view. As the campaigns march 
toward November, I think we have to ask ourselves where Vice President 
Gore really stands in the minds of the voters. I served with the Vice 
President in this body and I have the deepest respect for him, but I 
think we are aware that, while he is an expert politician, he is 
recognized as an extreme environmentalist to some extent. He has a 
mixed bag. He is involved in policy but he also appears to be a zinc 
miner, an oil company shareholder, and has a record of shifting his 
position on energy and environmental issues.
  One looks back on gasoline prices, which I have talked a good deal 
about this evening, but in his book ``Earth in the Balance,'' the Vice 
President, who certainly structures himself as an environmentalist 
said: 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.
  ``Changing our policies'' is certainly legitimate. Even as the Vice 
President was casting a tie-breaking vote in this body to raise 
gasoline taxes--and it was his vote that raised them 4.3 cents--the 
Environmental Protection Agency determined that more expensive 
reformulated gasoline needed to be sold in many areas of the country. 
According to memoranda from the Department of Energy and the 
Congressional Research Service, EPA's gasoline requirements balkanized 
the market and strained supply and raised prices.
  One has to question whether, if the Vice President's policies were so 
effective in raising prices, one would expect the Vice President to be 
somewhat satisfied. But obviously, confronted with angry consumers, Al 
Gore, the politician, suggested that refiners and oil companies were to 
blame. There is a lot of blaming around here for anything that is an 
inconvenience to the public. We all scurry for cover. Again, I think we 
have to look at whether what Al Gore wrote in his book, ``Earth in the 
Balance,'' suggests high energy prices would thwart the utilization of 
gasoline that, indeed, he might be satisfied with higher energy prices.
  I have been handed a note relative to a matter that is of concern to 
all Members, and as a consequence I believe the leader is going to 
request the attention of this body.
  I therefore suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget 
Act, as amended, requires the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee 
to adjust the appropriate budgetary aggregates and the allocations for 
the Appropriations Committee to reflect amounts provided for emergency 
requirements.
  I hereby submit revisions to the 2001 Senate Appropriations Committee 
allocations, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, 
in the following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Budget authority         Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation:
  General purpose discretionary.    $541,565,000,000    $547,687,000,000
  Highways......................  ..................      26,920,000,000
  Mass transit..................  ..................       4,639,000,000
  Mandatory.....................     327,787,000,000     310,215,000,000
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total.......................     869,352,000,000     889,461,000,000
                                 =======================================
Adjustments:
  General purpose discretionary.         +28,000,000      +6,527,000,000
  Highways......................  ..................  ..................
  Mass transit..................  ..................  ..................
  Mandatory.....................  ..................  ..................
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total.......................         +28,000,000      +6,527,000,000
                                 =======================================
Revised Allocation:
  General purpose discretionary.     541,593,000,000     554,214,000,000
  Highways......................  ..................      26,920,000,000
  Mass transit..................  ..................       4,639,000,000
  Mandatory.....................     327,787,000,000     310,215,000,000
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total.......................     869,380,000,000     895,988,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I hereby submit revisions to the 2001 budget aggregates, pursuant to 
section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, in the following amounts:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Budget authority             Outlays                  Surplus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Allocation: Budget Resolution       $1,467,670,000,000       $1,446,408,000,000          $56,792,000,000
Adjustments: Emergencies.............              +28,000,000           +6,527,000,000           -6,527,000,000
Revised Allocation: Budget Resolution        1,467,698,000,000        1,452,935,000,000           50,265,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S7150]]



                          ____________________