[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 97 (Monday, July 24, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7487-S7490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE ENERGY CRISIS IN OUR NATION

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, on several occasions I have risen 
before this body to address the crisis associated with energy in our 
Nation today. We have all experienced the high price of gasoline. We 
have seen a slight reduction of late, but I want to assure my 
colleagues that that situation is temporary, at best.
  The rationale for that is understandable if one considers the fact 
that we are currently consuming just about an amount equal to the 
productive capacity of our industry to supply gasoline. There are many 
good reasons for this. One is that we haven't built a new refinery in 
this country for almost 10 years now. We have closed about 37 
refineries in the United States in the last decade and, as a 
consequence of our increased dependence on imported oil, we have lost a 
good deal of our leverage because currently about 56 percent of the oil 
we consume in this country is imported. Most of that comes from the 
Mideast. As a consequence, we have become more dependent on imported 
oil from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
  The fastest-growing supply of oil now coming into the United States 
is from Iraq. That is rather curious. A lot of people forget that in 
1991 we fought a war over there. We lost 147 lives. We had nearly 427 
wounded. We had a number taken prisoner. Yet Saddam Hussein is the one 
we are looking toward now.
  I think the American public should be aware that it is pretty 
difficult to define just what the energy policy of the Clinton-Gore 
administration has been. We have seen their policy with regard to the 
nuclear industry, which provides about 20 percent of the power 
generated in this country, and they have said no to storing high-level 
nuclear waste. We are one vote short of a veto override on that matter. 
We have not been able to generate that last vote. So it is clear that 
the administration has said no to the nuclear industry, as far as 
expanding its contribution to energy in this country.
  As we look to hydroelectric, we have seen a policy which suggests 
that perhaps some of the dams out West should be taken down, with no 
consideration for the realization that there is a tradeoff associated 
with that. If you take those dams down, you are taking the tonnage that 
is moved by barge and putting it on the highways. The implication of 
that is significant. It is estimated that as many as 700,000 trucks per 
year would have to go on the highways to replace the current cargo 
capacity of barges that would be lost.
  If we take away nuclear and go to hydro, oil is certainly something 
we are looking toward other nations to provide, as opposed to 
developing the resources here in the continental United States, in the 
overthrust belt of Colorado, Wyoming, and other areas, and where there 
is oil in my State of Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, and other 
States. It is my understanding that the administration has withdrawn 
about 64 percent of the public land in the overthrust belt, which is in 
the Rocky Mountain areas, excluding them from the development of energy 
resources. The potential for coal, of course, is significant. There are 
no new coal plants being built in this country. The cost of permitting 
is such that we find they are uneconomical. The emphasis seems to be on 
natural gas. But if we look to the last 6 months, we have seen natural 
gas prices go from about $2.16 to over $4 for delivery later this 
winter.

  The crisis associated with our energy policy, or lack of an energy 
policy, is real in every field of energy resources. Emphasis is placed 
by the administration to some extent on renewables. While we all 
support renewables, it is fair to say that renewables only constitute 
about 40 percent of our energy consumption, even though we have spent 
about $70 billion in subsidies in this area. While they have a 
potential, surely they are not at the forefront nor are they capable at 
this time of relieving our dependence on conventional energy sources.
  As we look at our policies today, I think there is confusion in the 
minds of Americans as they reflect on the statements of their political 
leaders and the policies they pursue. It is very easy to be confused.
  I would like to share some examples with my colleagues.
  If we go back to our Vice President, Al Gore, in his book ``Earth in 
the Balance,'' Al Gore, the environmentalist, wrote that ``higher taxes 
on fossil fuel . . . is one of the logical first steps in changing our 
policies in a manner consistent with a more responsible approach to the 
environment.''
  All of us are obviously concerned over the health of our environment. 
We want to have a responsible approach associated with the environment. 
Nevertheless, the idea that raising the price of gasoline is good for 
the American economy and good for the American people is pretty hard to 
sell to the American public at this time when gasoline prices, 
depending on where we are in the country, range anywhere from $1.75 to 
$1.95 or higher.
  I think it is fair to say that perhaps the Vice President overlooks 
the reality that Americans live long distances from their jobs because 
they prefer to do so. We are a mobile society. As we are confronted 
with higher energy prices, obviously it not only affects our 
pocketbooks, but it affects inflation rates.
  At about the same time that the Clinton/Gore administration was 
talking about conservation, the Vice President was casting a tie-
breaking vote in the Senate to raise gasoline taxes--we all remember 
that--and the Environmental Protection Agency determined that more 
expensive ``reformulated gasoline'' needed to be sold in many areas of 
the country.
  I am not arguing the merits of that--other than to report that before 
my committee on Energy and Natural Resources, one of the principals of 
the Environmental Protection Agency advised us that they are now 
required under the Clean Air Act to have nine different types of 
reformulated gasoline in this country.
  That meant our refiners had to batch the gasoline additives, they had 
to transport it separately, they had to store it separately. Obviously, 
all of that has a significant cost for the taxpayer. According to a 
memorandum from the Department of Energy and the Congressional Research 
Service, EPA's gasoline requirements balkanized markets, strained 
supplies, and raised prices.
  Since the policies of the administration were so effective in raising 
the prices, one might expect the Vice President to be pleased. But 
confronted with angry consumers on the campaign trail, the Vice 
President suggests that refiners and oil companies are to blame. A lot 
of finger-pointing is going on around here.
  Let me refer to an article that appeared in the Washington Times of 
July 19. This is an editorial covering a memorandum that came from the 
Clinton Energy Department suggesting that the Department was indeed 
aware that the administration's own regulations pertaining to so-called 
``reformulated'' gasoline, rather than the oil industry gouging, were 
primarily responsible for the increased price of motor fuels.

  The reformulated gas--RFG--rule, which stipulated that refiners mix 
different types of gasoline for different localities, has made it 
impossible, or at least very difficult, to take advantage of the 
economies of scale in production and distribution that heretofore have 
helped keep U.S. energy prices stable and low.
  Their memo, which was sent June 5--a full week before the 
administration began to blame the oil industry for raising fuel 
prices--states that the RFG reformulated gasoline rule was a major 
reason for the price spike, delaying claims made by the administration 
that they couldn't see any reason other than blind greed for the change 
in per-gallon gasoline prices.

[[Page S7488]]

  I am not here to defend the industry, but I think it is fair to say 
that for the administration and the media to simply overlook what the 
cost of reformulated gasoline, applied regionally in this country with 
nine specific types of reformulated gasoline, has done to the price of 
gasoline speaks for itself.
  It is kind of interesting. This article said something to the effect 
that the media and Dan Rather stated during the July 14 broadcast that, 
``Republicans today sided with the oil companies against the Clinton/
Gore administration on the question of who and what is to blame for 
higher gasoline prices.''
  When you invoke this type of mandate on the first of June, you are 
certainly going to get a reaction from the American public when the 
price of reformulated gasoline goes up dramatically, particularly in 
the Midwest. That is what is known around here--and we are no strangers 
to it--as ``dancing the sidestep.''
  Another example of the Clinton/Gore administration's attitude towards 
energy goes back a little further, when we needed Russia's support--or 
at least its acquiescence--in NATO's war in Kosovo. There is strong 
evidence that the administration sought to persuade OPEC to cut 
production and drive crude oil prices up some 18 months ago. It seems 
this was done to help Russia, an oil exporter generally badly in need 
of hard currency, in exchange for its acquiescence--which we got--in 
NATO's war in Kosovo.
  Despite the fact that his own administration colluded with OPEC to 
manipulate prices, our Vice President has called on the Federal Trade 
Commission to investigate oil companies and refiners--for colluding to 
manipulate prices. I don't know how long that is going to take, but I 
suspect it is going to take some time for that investigation to be 
completed. In any event, I find that highly ironic.
  Here is another example.
  We have all heard that our Vice President says he wants to reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of oil in the volatile Middle East. But 
his stated policy is to curtail Federal oil and gas leasing on the 
Outer Continental Shelf. We heard him make that statement in Louisiana, 
that, if elected, he would terminate leases and buy back others.
  He would also defer any opening of public land in the Rocky Mountain 
Overthrust Belt in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado. He also urged the 
President to veto a 1995 bill allowing a small sliver of the Alaska 
Coastal Plain to be opened for oil and gas exploration.
  That area, I might add, in my State of Alaska, could have enough oil 
to replace imports of Saudi Arabian oil for the next 30 years. It is 
estimated the area might contain as much as 16 billion barrels. Of 
further note, the area known as ANWR has 19 million acres, most of 
which is already set aside in wilderness. The remaining acreage, 1.5 
million acres, is left for Congress to make a determination on. The 
industry says that out of that 1.5 million acres, oil is in abundance. 
With the advancement of technology we have in building icy roads in the 
wilderness, the footprint will be less than 2,000 acres. Clearly, the 
Clinton-Gore administration will not give us an opportunity to make a 
determination whether domestically we can reduce our dependence on 
imported oil and develop this very important resource in my State of 
Alaska.

  Over the past 8 years, domestic production in this country has 
plummeted 17 percent as demand for foreign oil has risen 14 percent. We 
now depend on foreign oil to supply 56 percent of our needs. The 
averages of the last few weeks are as much as 64 and 65 percent. 
However, during the disastrous 1973 Arab oil embargo, we were only 35-
percent dependent. Some of my colleagues remember we had gasoline lines 
around the block. The public was mad. They were upset and blamed the 
Government. Their rhetoric and policy just doesn't match up. We are now 
in the year 2000 and we are on average in excess of 56 percent 
dependent on foreign imports.
  Our Vice President also says we must increase our use of cleaner-
burning natural gas to replace ``dirty coal.'' But his policy is to put 
the most promising areas for the discovery and production of natural 
gas off limits to exploration. I refer to another quote he made October 
22 at a campaign appearance in Rye, NH. Our Vice President said: I will 
do everything in my power to make sure there is no new drilling, even 
in areas of the OCS already leased by previous administrations.
  This is yet another example of what folks find confusing. Our Vice 
President, in his book, ``Earth in the Balance,'' wrote: Mining 
inffluent must return to the Earth as pure as they came.
  But did you know that the Vice President, with his family, certainly 
don't follow this practice, pocketing $20,000 a year in mining 
royalties from the zinc mine on his Carthage, TN, property. He has 
pocketed $500,000 over the past 25 years. Considering this zinc mine 
has contaminated the banks of the Caney Fork River with heavy metal--
that is in this general area. This is the Caney Fork River. This is the 
area that is concentrated with pollutants from the leaching field. This 
is the actual area where the mines are. This is the leaching field. 
This is the Gore complex above. They have had violations of clean water 
standards from time to time. It is clear that the mine does not meet 
standards set forth in the Vice President's book. I am sure however, 
that the royalty checks got cashed.
  This is a picture that appeared in the June 30 Wall Street Journal 
cover article of this particular mine and the activities associated 
with it. I ask unanimous consent the article from the Wall Street 
Journal of June 30 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, June 30, 2000]

                Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner

                          (By Micah Morrison)

       ``The lakes and rivers sustain us; they flow through the 
     veins of the earth and into our own. But we must take care to 
     let them flow back out as pure as they came, not poison and 
     waste them without thought for the future.''--Al Gore, 
     ``Earth in the Balance.''
       ``He taught me how to plow a steep hillside with a team of 
     mules. He taught me how to clear three acres of heavily-
     wooded forest with a double-bladed axe. . . . He taught me 
     how to stop gullies before they got started. He taught me how 
     to drive, how to shoot a rifle, how to fish, how to swim. We 
     loved to swim together in the Caney Fork River off a big flat 
     rock on the back side of his farm.''--Al Gore on his father, 
     Sen. Albert Gore Sr., from algore2000.com.
       Carthage, Tenn.--On his most recent tax return, as he has 
     the past 25 years. Vice President Al Gore lists a $20,000 
     mining royalty for the extraction of zinc from beneath his 
     farm here in the bucolic hills of the Cumberland River 
     Valley. In total, Mr. Gore has earned $500,000 from zinc 
     royalties. His late father, the senator, introduced him not 
     only to the double-bladed ax but also to Armand Hammer, 
     chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corp., which sold the zinc-
     rich land to the Gore family in 1973.
       It also seems that zinc from Mr. Gore's property ends up in 
     the cool waters of the Caney Fork River, an oft-celebrated 
     site in Gore lore. A major shaft and tailings pond of the 
     Pasminco Zinc Mine sit practically in the backyard of the 
     vice president's Tennessee homestead. Zinc and other metals 
     from the Gore land move from underground tunnels through 
     elaborate extraction processes. Waste material ends up in the 
     tailings pond, from which water flows into adjacent Caney 
     Fork, languidly rolling on to the great Cumberland.


                             messy business

       Mining is intrinsically a messy business, and Pasminco Zinc 
     generally has a good environmental record. But not one that 
     would pass muster with ``Earth in the Balance,'' Mr. Gore's 
     best-selling environmental book. As recently as May 16, the 
     Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a 
     ``Notice of Violation.'' It informed Pasminco that it had 
     infringed the Tennessee Water Quality Control act due to high 
     levels of zinc in the river.
       Those zinc levels exceeded standards established by the 
     state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. A 
     ``sample analysis found that total zinc was 1.480 mg/L 
     [milligrams per liter], which is greater than the monthly 
     average of .65 mg/L and the daily maximum of 1.30 mg/L.'' 
     Pasminco ``may be subject to enforcement action pursuant to 
     The Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977 for the 
     aforementioned violation,'' the notice stated.
       This was not the first time Mr. Gore's mining benefactor 
     had run afoul of environmental regulations. In 1996, the mine 
     twice failed biomonitoring tests designed to protect water 
     quality in the Caney Fork for fish and wildlife. Mine 
     discharge ``failed two acute tests for toxicity to 
     Ceriodaphnia dubia,'' a species of water flea, according to a 
     mine permit analysis by Tennessee environmental authorities. 
     ``The discharge of industrial wastewater from Outfall #001 
     [the Caney Fork effluent] contains toxic metals (copper and 
     zinc),'' the analysis stated. ``The combined effect of these 
     pollutants may be detrimental to fish and aquatic life.''

[[Page S7489]]

       Tests for The Wall Street Journal by two independent 
     Tennessee laboratories, showed trace amounts of zinc and 
     other metals in the Caney Fork that were in compliance with 
     federal standards. But soil tests revealed what one lab 
     called problematic ``large quantities'' of heavy metals in 
     the riverbank soil downstream of the Caney Fork effluent. In 
     both sets of tests, samples of water and soil were provided 
     to the labs by the Journal.
       Soil samples drawn from the mine effluent and downstream 
     ``contained large quantities of Barium, Iron, and Zinc, as 
     well as smaller amounts of arsenic, Chromium and Lead,'' 
     Warner Laboratories found in September. ``The soil from each 
     of these sites seems to have some problems according to our 
     findings. The levels of Barium, Iron and Zinc far exceed any 
     report limit [a detection threshold within the testing 
     system] and it should be noted that these results are 
     extremely high compared to typical soil found in a populated 
     neighborhood.''
       Tests conducted in June by the Environmental Science Corp. 
     found similar traces of heavy metals in the water and soil. 
     The report found the soil samples to contain relatively high 
     levels of ``Barium, Iron, Zinc, and several of the other 
     metals, including Aluminum, Calcium and Magnesium.'' The ESC 
     report also noted traces of cyanide in some water and soil 
     samples.
       Pasminco is not required to test soil along the banks of 
     the Caney Fork. Both labs, while noting anomalies in the 
     soil, believe the results do not warrant concern as 
     environmental hazards. The water and soil clearly are not, 
     however, ``as pure as they came,'' as Mr. Gore demands in 
     ``Earth in the Balance.''
       A 1998 study by the Environmental Working Group, a 
     Washington-based organization, criticized the zinc-mining 
     operation for purchasing a toxic waste that included sulfuric 
     acid and reselling it as fertilizer. The mine buys acid waste 
     from steel plants, uses it as purification agent in zinc 
     processing, and then sells the waste to fertilizer companies, 
     according to a report in the Tennessean, a Nashville 
     newspaper. Most soil scientists say the procedure is safe.
       Tennessee environmentalists disagree. Clearly, when you 
     spread those types of chemicals around on a farm or on the 
     land, you're going to get a lot of runoff,'' Brian McGuire, 
     executive director of Tennessee Citizens Action told the 
     Tennessean. ``So it's going to get into the water. We're 
     poisoning ourselves.''
       A Pasminco official noted that the mine has had few 
     violations and works to uphold a ``very strict standard'' of 
     environmental quality. The Gore campaign did not respond to 
     requests for comment. But some Tennessee residents say Mr. 
     Gore becomes testy when questioned about the zinc mine. Tom 
     Gniewek, a retired chemical engineer from Camden, Tenn., has 
     studied zinc mine for years and tried to question Mr. Gore 
     about it at town-hall meetings. ``He gets real angry,'' Mr. 
     Gniewek says. ``Instead of answering the question, he 
     attacked my motives and accused people like me of vandalizing 
     the earth.''
       Mr. Gore's original purchase of the zinc-rich land is of 
     some interest as well, shedding light on his long 
     relationship with Mr. Hammer, the former Occidental Petroleum 
     chief. A controversial influence peddler who trafficked in 
     politicians of all stripes and parties. Mr. Hammer pleaded 
     guilty in 1975 to providing hush money in the Watergate 
     scandal.
       Mr. Hammer cut a wide swath across Washington from the 
     1930s until his death in 1990 at 92. His controversial career 
     was marked by decades of profitable business dealings with 
     the Soviet Union, which were closely watched by the FBI. He 
     leapt into the big time by acquiring Libyan oil rights for 
     Occidental Petroleum through what biographer Edward Jay 
     Epstein has characterized as a combination of shrewd business 
     dealings and bribery. After his 1975 conviction, Mr. Hammer 
     spent the rest of his life campaigning for a pardon, which 
     President Bush granted in 1989.
       Mr. Hammer cultivated close relationships with many 
     politicians, but he was closest to Mr. Gore's father, a U.S. 
     senator from 1953 until 1971. Mr. Hammer's Occidental 
     Minerals snapped up the zinc-bearing property in 1972. The 
     senior Mr. Gore's farm is on the opposite bank of the Caney 
     Fork. Mr. Hammer paid $160,000, double the only other offer, 
     according to the Washington Post, which first disclosed 
     details of the arrangement during the 1992 presidential 
     campaign.
       According to deed documents in Carthage, a year later Mr. 
     Hammer sold the land to the senior Mr. Gore for $160,000, 
     adding the extremely generous $20,000 per year mineral 
     royalty. Ten minutes after that sale, the former senator 
     executed a deed selling the property, including the mineral 
     rights, to his son, the future vice president, for $140,000. 
     Albert Gore Sr. told the Post he kept the first $20,000 
     royalty for himself, evening up the father-son transaction.
       The purpose of the sale appears to have been transferring 
     the annual $20,000 payment from Mr. Hammer to the young Mr. 
     Gore. The Post reported that the ``$20,000 a year amounts to 
     $227 an acre, much more than the $30 an acre Occidental 
     Minerals, part of Hammer's oil company, paid the senior Gore 
     and some neighbors a few years before the 1973 arrangement.''
       In 1992 then-Sen. Gore told the Post that although he had 
     been working for ``slave wages'' as a newspaper reporter, he 
     quickly came up with a $40,000 down payment from two previous 
     real-estate investments. In 1974, the zinc mine began annual 
     payments of $20,000 to Mr. Gore, an important source of 
     income to the young politician for many years.
       After the senior Mr. Gore lost his 1970 Senate re-election 
     bid, Mr. Hammer named him chairman of Island Creek Coal, an 
     Occidental subsidiary, and appointed him to the board of 
     directors of Occidental Petroleum. The late Mr. Gore's estate 
     is conservatively valued at $1.5 million, including a block 
     of Occidental stock worth between $250,000 and $500,000. The 
     vice president is executor and trustee of his father's 
     estate, with ``sole discretion'' to manage a trust on his 
     mother's behalf.
       As Albert Gore Jr. rose through the political ranks, Mr. 
     Hammer continued to assist him. The Hammer family and 
     corporations made donations up to the legal maximum in all of 
     Mr. Gore's campaigns, according to Mr. Hammer's former 
     personal assistant, Neil Lyndon, writing in London's Daily 
     Telegraph. Mr. Gore regularly dined with Mr. Hammer and 
     Occidental lobbyists in Washington, Mr. Lyndon wrote. 
     ``Separately and together, the Gores sometimes used Hammer's 
     luxurious private Boeing 727 for journeys and jaunts.'' The 
     former Hammer aide noted that the ``profound and prolonged 
     involvement between Hammer and Gore has never been revealed 
     or investigated.''
       Mr. Hammer was famous for his dealings with the Soviet 
     Union, and received a humanitarian award in Moscow in 1987 
     from International Physicians Against Nuclear War. Mr. Gore, 
     who had been elected to the Senate in 1984, delivered a 
     speech to the same convention, saying conventional arms 
     should be cut along with nuclear weapons. As vice president, 
     Mr. Gore became the Clinton administration point man on 
     relations with Russia.


                             more hypocrisy

       Mr. Gore would be well served to get the facts out about 
     his relationship with Mr. Hammer, beginning with the zinc 
     bounty. The issue is bigger than whether there is a pollution 
     problem in Tennessee. When Mr. Gore's zinc riches are at 
     stake, he appears unwilling to live by the standards he sets 
     out for others in ``Earth in the Balance.''
       His record of uncompromising environmental rhetoric seems 
     another instance of the kind of hypocrisy that has dogged his 
     campaign for months. He's been accused of being a slumlord 
     for providing substandard housing to a tenant on a rental 
     unit adjoining his farm. A well-remembered 1996 speech to the 
     Democratic National Convention, invoking his sister's death 
     by lung cancer and attacking the tobacco industry, also 
     contributed to his reputation for slippery sanctimony when 
     his close ties to Tennessee tobacco were revealed. And of 
     course Mr. Gore has been sharply criticized for posturing on 
     campaign finance reform while under investigation for 
     possible fund-raising crimes in the 1996 campaign.
       No mention of the zinc mine appears in ``Earth in the 
     Balance,'' on Mr. Gore's campaign Web site or in his 
     speeches. At this point the story of the Tennessee farm, the 
     zinc mine, the politician and the influence peddler is 
     largely one of cant and hypocrisy. This is not a hanging 
     crime in the political world, but the vice president, among 
     others, might note that Bill Clinton's problems also began 
     with a murky land deal and a shady financier.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, it is not my desire to criticize somebody 
because they own a mine or have a resource interest, but there is a 
certain criticism when one recognizes the reality that this mine is 
hardly a model for anyone, based on the number of violations that have 
been filed in Tennessee over an extended period of time on this 
particular mine.
  We know the Vice President has been critical of some; namely George 
W. Bush, for his close ties to big oil. In fact, the Vice President's 
family has close historical ties to Occidental Petroleum and shares in 
that company which, in its public disclosure, is valued between 
$500,000 to $1 million. Occidental Petroleum plans to drill in the 
ancestral lands of over 5,000 U'wa Indians in the Colombia rain forest. 
They threatened suicide if Occidental goes forward with its plans.
  I ask unanimous consent an article from the June 26 Washington Times 
that substantiates that allegation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

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,

[[Page S7490]]

     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 this 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 
     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. We have heard that the Vice President and the 
administration tried to stop drilling in Alaska with expressions of 
concern for the G'wichin Indians, some of which reside in Alaska, and 
others which reside in Canada.
  But has he spoken out for the U'was in Colombia? Is there an 
inconsistency here? On the one hand, he allows, and evidently ignores, 
the drilling in the Colombia rain forest on leases owned by Occidental 
Petroleum, and he seems to have no objection. But in an area the 
G'wichin Indians in Alaska depend on for subsistence, a significant 
area which is in the purview of the Senate to make decisions for 
opening, he does not support oil and gas exploration. My point is, 
there is an inconsistency here.
  The weight of their policy as it twists and reinvents itself is a 
mystery to me as I try to summon a clear vision of their intent. His 
beliefs are a confusing world of images and contradictions. I suspect 
it might be difficult for others, as well.

                          ____________________