[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.
____________________