[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 123 (Thursday, October 5, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9876-S9879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY POLICY
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I think it is important to note the
situation escalating in the Mideast as a consequence of the tensions.
It is unfortunate it would be at a time when we had hoped there would
be an effort to get a firm peace agreement. As a consequence of that, I
think it is important to bring to the attention of my colleagues a
reality relative to the release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at
the recommendation of Vice President Gore to our President.
As you know, the President did release 30 million barrels of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This was the largest single release of
crude oil from SPR in the 25-year history of the reserve. The
administration has claimed this has been a successful effort because
the price of oil has dropped. Notwithstanding that, using SPR to
manipulate prices is contrary to the law because we have not
reauthorized SPR, and of course the success of this is determined in
the long term, not the short term.
But I wish to bring to the attention of each and every Member some
facts. Since the President made his announcement, there has been no new
heating oil placed into the market and no measurable rise in
inventories. It may surprise some of you, particularly those in the
Northeast, to know that American consumers may, under the current
arrangement, never see any of the product refined from the crude oil
that we released from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let me explain
why because this is important.
In the arrangement, there was absolutely no requirement that those
who successfully bid on crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
needed to refine it into heating oil. They may decide to make gasoline
or some other product.
Second, there is absolutely nothing that prevents this product from
being shipped to foreign markets, either in its crude form or as a
refined product such as heating oil.
Guess what. That is just what is happening. We are shipping heating
oil to Europe. Look at the Wall Street Journal this morning. Let me
quote:
Europe's market for heating oil is 50 percent bigger than
the U.S. heating oil market. Europe's stocks are even tighter
and prices there are a few cents a gallon higher, so U.S.
refiners have renewed incentive to ship heating oil across
the Atlantic. . . . U.S. exports of heating oil to Europe
have ballooned nearly six times, in the first 7 months of
this year. . . .
That tells the story of the arrangement that the administration made
to take the oil out of SPR and increase our heating oil supply. What
has happened with it is it is going to Europe. I am not surprised by
this, in the sense of the market going to the highest price where it
can generate a return. But I am astonished about the claim of the
administration and those who support the movement of SPR, and the
release, that it was done because of concerns over supply for the
benefit of the American consumer. The American consumer has not
benefited. This is a spin being put on by the pundits.
I asked the Secretary of Energy pointblank at a hearing last week:
Is it possible as a result of oil being released from SPR
that prices could fall but no new heating oil would find its
way into the U.S. heating market?
Do you know what the answer was? It could happen. The irony is that
we are going to release oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to
provide product to a European market. That should not be lost on the
American consumer or Members of this body.
Finally, SPR was created for one specific purpose: as a reserve in
case our supply, our dependence on OPEC and other countries, is
disrupted. We are 58-percent dependent on imported oil. We have a
situation in the Mideast. Iraq is claiming Kuwait is stealing its oil,
the same claim it made prior to the Persian Gulf war. Kuwait is now
claiming Iraq stole oil during the gulf war. The entire Israeli-
Palestinian peace process appears, unfortunately, to have fallen apart.
All this leads to a reminder that we should not use our petroleum
reserve for political purposes, and that appears to be what we have
done in this arrangement.
Mr. President, how much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask the Chair to advise me when I have 4 minutes
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as a consequence of the focus on energy
between our two Presidential candidates, it is very appropriate that we
identify differences.
The Vice President has said he has an energy plan that focuses not
only on increasing the supply but also on working on the consumption
side, but the real facts are the Vice President does not practice what
he preaches. Let's look at the record over the last 7\1/2\ years.
The administration has opposed domestic oil exploration and
production. We have had 17 percent less production since Clinton-Gore
took office, and the facts are it decreased the number of oil wells
from 136,000 and the number of gas wells has decreased by 57,000. These
are wells that have actually been closed since 1992. There has been
absolutely no utilization of American coal in coal-fired electric
generating plants. We have not built a new plant since 1990.
The difficulty is the Environmental Protection Agency has made it so
uneconomic that the industry simply cannot get the permits. We force
the nuclear energy to choke on its own waste. We were one vote short in
the Senate to pass a veto override. Yet the U.S. Court of Appeals has
given the industry a liability case in the Court of
[[Page S9877]]
Claims, with a liability to the taxpayers of somewhere between $40
billion and $80 billion.
The administration threatens to tear down hydroelectric dams out
West. What are we going to do there? We are going to take the traffic
off the rivers and put it on the highways. We have ignored electric
reliability and supply concerns. Go out to California, particularly San
Diego, where they have seen price spikes and brownouts, no new
generation, no new transmission. This has happened on the Vice
President's watch.
Natural gas prices in the last 10 months have gone from $2.60 to
$5.40 for delivery. That is the problem we are facing, and that is the
record under this administration.
Let's not forget one more thing. The Vice President talks about
cutting taxes. The Vice President himself cast the vote in 1993 to
raise the gas tax 4.3 cents a gallon. He did not just cast the vote; he
broke the tie, and that is the significance of the record with regard
to a contribution to increase domestic energy in this country. Instead
of doing something to increase domestic oil supply, the Vice President
and the administration would rather blame big oil profiteering, and
that is ironic. Where was big oil a year ago when oil was selling for
$10 a barrel? Who was profiteering then, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Who sets the price of oil? OPEC.
I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of our time for Senator
Stevens, who wants to claim that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it seems to me the majority is crying
because the price of oil has dropped. The President made a decisive
step and said we are going to pump oil from our reserve. Immediately,
the price of oil dropped. Today it is below $30 a barrel. The majority
seems so concerned that what the President has done has helped--the
price of oil has dropped.
I suggest my friends in the majority talk to the Governor of Texas or
maybe the man running for Vice President. They have connections with
the oil industry. Maybe they could talk him into not shipping oil
overseas if that is, in fact, what is happening. They are crying
crocodile tears because what is happening here is good. We laid out in
great detail yesterday what this administration has done to lower the
price of oil to make sure the economy was in good shape.
I am also continually amazed at what the majority says about the Vice
President: He broke the tie, so there is a 4-cent-per-gallon increase
in gas; isn't that too bad?
Let's look at the history. Remember, the majority was saying all
kinds of bad things would happen. The Republicans were saying all kinds
of bad things would happen if, in fact, the Clinton and Gore budget
deficit reduction plan passed. It passed.
Prior to passing, listen to what the Republicans had to say.
Conrad Burns:
So we're still going to pile up some more debt. But most of
all, we're going to cost jobs in this country.
He was wrong on both counts. There are 22 million new jobs and, of
course, the debt is gone.
Orrin Hatch said:
Make no mistake, this will cost jobs.
Wrong again.
Phil Gramm, the Senator from Texas:
I want to predict here tonight that if we adopt this bill,
the American economy is going to get weaker, not stronger,
and the deficit 4 years from today will be higher than it is
today, and not lower. When it is all said and done, people
will pay more taxes, the economy will create fewer jobs,
Government will spend more money, and the American people
will be worse off.
I am not going to go into detail, but we have 300,000 fewer Federal
employees than in 1992. We have the lowest unemployment in some 40
years. We have created 22 million jobs. We have a Federal Government
today that is smaller than when President Kennedy was President. I
think those on the other side should realize, yes, the Vice President
did cast a decisive vote, but it was so decisive that it put this
country on the road to economic recovery.
I also suggest my friends should stop talking about nuclear waste. We
know there is not going to be another nuclear powerplant built in
America, but we also recognize that rather than spending time on
nuclear waste, why don't they talk about alternative energy--solar,
wind, and geothermal?
My friend from Alaska continually talks about energy policy. I
respect his opinion, but I continue to believe he is absolutely wrong.
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my friend from California from
the time we have.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my friend for setting the record
straight and for doing such a good job because we do have to remember
where we were when the Clinton-Gore administration took office.
In my State, there was suffering; there was no hope; people's dreams
were set aside; the economy was in the tank; and there was double-digit
unemployment. Today we are in the midst of the greatest economic
recovery ever. It dates back to the vote Al Gore cast because he was
the deciding vote on that budget. The Republicans predicted gloom and
doom, deficits and debt, unemployment and the rest. Let's face it; they
were wrong. We do not want to go back to those days of high deficits.
Violence Against Women Act
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I appreciate the assistant Democratic
leader yielding me time because I want to talk briefly about the
Violence Against Women Act, and then I am going to make a unanimous
consent request, of which I believe the other side has been made aware.
The Violence Against Women Act, a landmark law that was passed in
1994, has now expired. We have to reauthorize it. It is crucial. It has
expired.
Is this an important and worthy act? Yes, it is. Both sides of the
aisle agree. We have seen a 21-percent reduction in violence against
women. We have seen shelters for battered women and their families
built. They have gone up from 1,200 to about 2,000. We see doctors
trained to recognize domestic abuse and police men and women trained to
recognize domestic abuse. So we are seeing, in the figures, a decrease
in the violence.
But we cannot allow this law to die. The point is, it passed the
House overwhelmingly. It is a clean bill. But there are political games
going on over here. People want to attach all kinds of different things
to the Violence Against Women Act. It can stand alone on its own two
feet. Senator Biden wrote that act a long time ago. When I was in the
House, he asked me to carry it. He has been joined by Senator Hatch.
They have worked together now on this new reauthorization.
The last point I want to make before making my unanimous consent
request is this: It may be called the Violence Against Women Act, but
this act directly attacks the problem of children in these homes. We
have to realize that children under the age of 12 live in approximately
4 out of 10 homes that experience domestic violence.
We look at Hollywood--and we are critical of what they are doing in
terms of the R-rated films shown to kids--but the fact is, there is
only one reliable predictor of future violence. If a male child sees
one parent beat another parent, he is twice as likely to abuse his own
wife as the son of nonviolent parents.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes remaining.
Mr. REID. I yield the Senator 2 more minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. We have a situation where we know if a child sees
violence in the home, that child is very likely to repeat that
violence. We have to protect these children by stopping the violence.
Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 1248
At this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 834, H. 1248, an
act to prevent violence against women, that the bill be considered read
a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
[[Page S9878]]
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I ask the Senator, under my
reservation, this bill which has done so much good in the country, has
it lapsed?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization has
expired. We can't permit this to continue any longer. The House acted,
and well over 400 Members voted to reauthorize it.
Mr. REID. Is the Senator telling me that right now the law is not in
effect in our country?
Mrs. BOXER. In essence, the authorization has definitely expired. My
friend is right. That is why I make this request in a most urgent
fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to object, I rise on behalf of the
leader, who is working now with Members on the other side. I do not
know of anyone who disagrees with what the Senator from California has
said. No one I know of disagrees with the bill. I certainly do not.
However, there is a process underway. I object to the unanimous consent
request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Who yields time?
Time runs equally against both sides.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. How much time is remaining on the minority side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes on the minority side.
Mr. REID. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Reid, once more, for yielding me some
time.
I understand the Republican side of the aisle wants to attach
different pieces of legislation to the Violence Against Women Act, and
that is what is slowing it down. I know they want to see this act go
forward. But I have to say to them, there is an easy way to do it.
I am very disappointed we had this objection this morning. We had a
beautiful prayer--a beautiful prayer--given by Senator Leahy's brother-
in-law. If you heard what he said, he prayed that we in the Senate
could work to do good works--to do good works. I know that is what we
all strive to do every single day we get up in the morning. But it
seems to me that good work such as the Violence Against Women Act is
easy to do. We do not have to use it as a train to which we attach
different pieces of legislation.
I see Senator Wellstone on the floor. He has worked so hard in the
area of the trafficking of women worldwide. Yes, we have no objection
if we marry these two, if you will, pieces of legislation together
because they make sense. One is talking about violence at home; one is
talking about taking girls and putting them into sex trafficking. And
it is a sin upon the world that this happens. We agreed to do this. It
could have been done in a minute. We do not need to come on the floor
and have a long period of time to discuss this. I am sure the Senator
would agree; we could have a few comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I am very disappointed this morning that we haven't been
able to do at least one good thing for the women and children of this
country, and that is to pass the House bill, the Violence Against Women
Act, to get it done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Time runs equally against both sides.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like to ask a question of my friend
from California in the minute we have remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
Mr. REID. With all this compassionate conservatism around, do you
think it would be good if the Governor of Texas interceded in this
matter?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I would call on the Governor to intercede with our
friends on the other side. He was asked about the Violence Against
Women Act on the campaign trail. He was unaware of it. He said he had
not heard of it, although Texas has received about $75 million, and
they have built battered women shelters. Then when he studied it, he
said he supported it, for which I am very grateful. But this is a
golden moment for him.
Since we have passed the bill, I want to say to my friend from
Nevada, intimate-partner violence has decreased by 21 percent. Again,
we have seen the number of battered women shelters increase by 60
percent. Before there were more animal shelters than there were for
women and children. So we should act. I hope my friends will
reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All the time of the minority has expired.
Who yields time?
Time will run on the majority side.
Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think we are getting prepared, within a
couple minutes now, to have a vote on the continuing resolution. I
simply want to rise again to say I do not disagree at all with what the
Senator from California is saying. But the fact is, there is a plan.
There is a plan to operate under here. The Senate does not simply react
because someone gets up and says it is time to do this. There are
negotiations going on between the leader and Senators on the other
side.
I am sure this will indeed be done. We have a lot of things that need
to be done. I would suggest that we ought to get the whole thing
planned a little bit. I am a little surprised that this Senator is
talking about objecting to moving forward because I think there have
been quite a few objections coming from that side that has gotten us to
where we are now. That is not really the point. The point is, we will
handle this bill. The leader has prepared to do that.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I hope we can now proceed to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the joint resolution for
the third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass? The yeas
and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs.
Feinstein) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee, L.
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--1
Leahy
[[Page S9879]]
NOT VOTING--4
Feinstein
Helms
Jeffords
Lieberman
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 110) was passed.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________