[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.

                          ____________________