[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 141 (Tuesday, October 31, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11409-S11413]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 4 years ago, a theme in the election 
was, ``It's the economy, stupid.'' Well, that is true in this election, 
but there is something a little different: ``It's the energy crisis, 
stupid.''
  The Vice President would have us think the economy is the issue that 
will get him elected President, that he and President Clinton came up 
with a plan to tax gasoline and Social Security benefits, and once he 
cast the tie-breaking vote to increase your taxes and my taxes, 
interest rates came down, the stock market went up, and the economy 
prospered.
  The Vice President and the Democrats conveniently ignore the fact 
that the economy had already begun posting strong growth before 
Clinton-Gore took office. That may sound like old hat, but the 
President's budget plans never once mentioned a balanced budget as a 
policy goal at that time. Instead, those budget plans predicted annual 
deficits of $200 billion a year well into the future.
  As my colleagues and good friends Senator Domenici, Senator Gramm, 
and others pointed out last night, the credit for our booming economy 
ought to be given to a couple of people. Specifically, one is Dr. Alan 
Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, for a sound fiscal policy that 
prevented the onset of inflation. As we know, Greenspan has been around 
a long time.
  Further, a Republican Congress deserves some credit for putting 
controls on Federal spending and turning the deficit into a surplus.
  I will not spend a lot of time today on that subject because I rise 
to talk about energy. I want to talk about the reality that the 
administration has no energy policy. The energy policy in this country, 
for what it is worth, is dictated by America's environmental community. 
They accept no responsibility for the reality that we are short of 
energy and becoming more and more dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  As we look at our economic prosperity over the past few years, there 
is a growing concern that it might be coming to an end, partially for 
lack of a sound national energy policy. Look at the American consumers 
out there. They are finding themselves under the shadow, if you will, 
of a failed energy policy. We have crude oil prices which are remaining 
solidly at $30 plus a barrel but, remember, it was March of 1999 when 
it was $10 a barrel.
  The administration blames ``Big Oil.'' They use the word 
``profiteering.'' Well, is the implication then, in March of 1999, that 
``Big Oil'' was giving us a gift of some kind, selling it to us at $10 
a barrel or was it supply and demand? Who sets the price of oil? Is it 
Exxon? Is it British Petroleum? Is it Phillips? It certainly is not. We 
all know that.
  It is from where we import the oil. It is Saudi Arabia. It is 
Venezuela. It is Mexico. They are setting the price of oil. Why? 
Because we are approximately 58 percent dependent on imported oil. We 
are addicted to oil. We don't produce enough, so we pay the going 
price. If we don't pay it, somebody else will.
  Why has it gone up? The general economy of the world has gone up; 
Japan has recovered; Asia, more demand. We are a society that runs on 
energy. All our communications, our expansion, our e-mail, computers, 
all are dependent on energy.
  So American consumers are finding themselves in the shadow of a 
failed energy policy, with crude oil prices at $30 plus a barrel--they 
have been up as high as $37 a barrel--and gasoline prices averaging 
well above $1.50 a gallon for most of the year. In some areas, they 
have gone up to nearly $2 a gallon.
  The sleeper here is natural gas. Americans haven't awakened yet to 
the reality that natural gas prices have more than doubled. Ten months 
ago, they were at $2.16 per thousand cubic feet of gas. Deliveries in 
November of this year, just beginning tomorrow, were at one time in the 
area of $5.30 to $5.40. I would remind my colleagues that 50 percent of 
the homes in this country heat on natural gas.
  U.S. consumers have dealt with electricity price spikes and supply 
disruptions. All you have to do is go to San Diego, California; you 
will get a flavor for what is happening. You can't get a permit to put 
in a new generating plant. Consumers are facing brownouts as a 
consequence and prices are going up. People are closing their 
businesses. They cannot pay, in many cases, the rates that are being 
charged in that particular area of California.
  Heating oil inventories--which we are concerned about, particularly 
in

[[Page S11410]]

the Northeast, where there is such dependence on heating oil--are at 
the lowest level in decades. In fact, when the President proposed the 
sale of SPR--30 million barrels from the SPR reserve in Louisiana--and 
then initiated an action to order the transfer of that crude oil into 
refineries, we suddenly found that we had another problem--we didn't 
have refining capacity; they were operating at about 96-percent 
capacity. We took this additional oil out of SPR and we found out we 
could not refine it without displacing other imported oil.
  This was testimony in the House and Senate. In the hearing I chaired 
as Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, testimony 
indicated there would be, out of the 30 million barrels, about 3 to 5 
million barrels of distillate. We asked the Under Secretary of Energy: 
How much heating oil are you going to get out of 3 to 5 million barrels 
of distillate? Frankly, he didn't know.
  There was another hearing going on in the House, and witnesses from 
the same Department of Energy indicated there would be approximately 
250,000 barrels. A 1-day supply of heating oil in the Northeast is 
about a million barrels. So it is somewhere between a half day's supply 
and 2 to 3 days' supply. This was all a result of the falderal 
associated with the release of the SPR.
  The objective of the SPR release was to increase the heating oil 
supply in the Northeast Corridor. Did it occur? It clearly did not. Was 
there manipulation of price? To some extent. It was $37 and it dropped 
down to $33, or thereabouts, on that announcement. But it clearly 
didn't increase the supply of heating oil, and that was the objective. 
Currently, I am told the price of crude oil is $33.75 a barrel, but 
let's remember from where we started--$37 per barrel.
  The nice thing about what the OPEC nations have done is they have 
gradually assimilated a price increase so it doesn't hurt so bad. 
Remember, it was $10 a year ago. Then it got up to $17, $18, $19, and 
then up to $22. At $22, OPEC advised us they were going to put in a 
floor and a ceiling. The ceiling was $28; the floor was $22. That 
worked so well they moved it up beyond $28. Now they are in the low 
thirties. Well, the sky is the limit.
  The point is that the administration has no energy policy. Now, how 
long has it been going on? We point fingers here, and it is easy to do, 
particularly in a political season. But we really don't have a 
strategy. We need a strategy because the cost of increasing energy, the 
shortage of energy, and the increased dependence on imports is a 
compromise of our national security.
  Moving from national security back to the economy, economists now 
believe the increased energy prices could very well lead to a slowdown 
in consumer spending. Consumers are likely to cut back in other areas 
to offset the higher prices they are paying for gasoline, electricity, 
home heating oil, or natural gas.
  Recently, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan indicated rising energy costs 
would push up the cost of consumer goods. Why? Delivery costs are 
associated with movement of these goods to market. We are seeing that 
as a reality. Wholesale prices, in September, increased nine-tenths of 
1 percent, led mainly by a 3.7-percent increase in energy costs. Where 
I come from that is called inflation. You don't need an economic degree 
to see it; the math is simple. Higher natural gas prices, plus higher 
oil prices, plus higher gasoline and fuel oil prices, plus higher 
electric prices, equals renewed increasing inflation. We haven't poked 
that tiger in the ribs for a long time, but we are poking him now and 
he is waiting. Somebody called him a ``sleeping dragon'' who has been 
sitting around for the better part of a decade. As we poke him in the 
ribs with higher energy prices, we are going to face reality, which is 
an impact on the economy both here and in countries around the world.

  A significant number of Fortune 500 companies have reported third 
quarter earnings under expectations, largely due to the increased 
energy costs. Have you taken an airplane ride lately? You can't figure 
out the fares, whether you fly Saturday before 2 o'clock or Thursday 
after 5 o'clock; but there is a surcharge included in your fare. If you 
want a Washington, DC, taxi, there is a surcharge. There is a sticker 
in the cab that says the fares are up 50 cents or so because of the 
cost of gas. Every business is facing these costs. Fuel costs put the 
brakes on truckers' profits. Furniture manufacturers have cut earnings 
projections. We have seen truckers come into Washington and drive 
trucks across the lawn, and they were talking about the high price of 
diesel fuel. They say high gas prices are restraining shoppers from 
buying furniture and other big-ticket items.
  Well, many analysts predict high oil prices could reduce U.S. 
economic growth by as much as 2 percent this year. What does that mean? 
Over the next five years, that would mean a loss in the GDP of about 
$165 billion a year, and about 5.5 million fewer jobs. We face an 
increasing balance of payments from our ever-increasing reliance on 
foreign oil. That is a balance of payments deficit.
  Our trade deficit hit an all-time record in July of this year, pushed 
by the cost of imported oil. One-third of our trade deficit is the cost 
of imported oil. We also face the prospect of, frankly, an unreliable 
electric supply, weakening the backbone of the new economy.
  Most people don't realize that high tech means high electric usage, 
more computers, more e-mail, more taxes. From where will it come? Add 
these together and you have the makings of an economic slowdown, 
meltdown--call it what you like. The economic engine, which is 
responsible for the incredible prosperity of the past decade, can begin 
to slow down and is beginning to slow down. Nobody really wants to face 
up to that because times have been good, but everything changes and 
nothing stands still.
  What has been the response of the administration? Well, the 
administration, of course, wants to take credit for the economic growth 
of the past few years, but they try to duck the responsibility for the 
impending energy crisis that threatens to bring this period of 
prosperity to an end. The administration has consistently restricted 
our energy supply and forced higher energy prices on consumers. They 
have specifically opposed domestic oil exploration and production. We 
have 17 percent less domestic oil production--less production--since 
President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office.
  We have had 136,000 oil and 57,000 gas wells close in this country 
since 1992. We have tremendous coal reserves in this country, but the 
administration is opposed to the use of that coal. We haven't built a 
new coal fired plant since the mid-1990s. EPA permits make it 
absolutely uneconomic. You can't get permits. The nuclear industry, 
which is about 20 percent of the power generated in this country, is 
choking on its own waste.
  We are one vote short in this body of overriding a Presidential veto. 
Every Member who voted against it should remember that. You have a 
responsibility. If you don't get your electric power from nuclear, from 
where are you going to get it? You better have an answer because when 
constituents have a brownout, they are going to ask why.
  There is a court of appeals liability case associated with the 
nuclear industry where the court said that the Federal Government made 
a contractual commitment to take the waste in 1998. The Federal 
Government chose to ignore that liability to the taxpayers of somewhere 
in the area of $40 billion to $80 billion. Nobody bats an eye here. 
What is the sanctity of a contract? I know it means something to the 
occupant of the chair and to me. The court said the Government should 
keep its word, but the Government simply ignores it. Somebody else is 
going to have to take care of it on another watch.

  They also threaten to tear down hydroelectric dams out West. There is 
a tradeoff. Tear down those dams, and we don't have navigation on those 
rivers. Where do we put the barge traffic? We put the traffic back on 
the highways. What is the implication of that? You can move an awful 
lot of material on barges. If you move that same material on highways, 
you are going to create traffic problems, pollution problems, and so 
forth.
  We ignored electric reliability and supply concerns with the 
brownouts in San Diego. We have had no new generation of transmission 
facilities, yet the consumer market has grown. The Vice

[[Page S11411]]

President has said he will even go further to restrict new oil and gas 
exploration and production. In Rye, NH, on October 21, 1999, Vice 
President Gore made the following statement:

       I will make sure that there is no new oil leasing off the 
     coast of California and Florida and then I will go much 
     further. I will do everything in my power to make sure that 
     there is no new drilling off these sensitive areas, even in 
     areas already leased by previous administrations.

  That doesn't sound very good, when most of our oil is coming from the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  On energy, there is a clear distinction between the two sides. The 
difference between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush could not be 
more clear. The Bush proposal is $7.1 billion over 10 years; the Gore 
proposal is 10 times that amount, some $80 to $125 billion. The Vice 
President has said he has an energy plan that focuses not only on 
increasing the supply but also working on the consumption side.
  The facts show the Vice President doesn't necessarily practice what 
he preaches. The Vice President wants to raise prices and limit supply 
of fossil energy which makes up over 80 percent of our energy needs. By 
discouraging domestic production, the Clinton-Gore administration has 
forced us to be more dependent on foreign oil, placing our Nation's 
security at risk. All we have to do is witness the growing influence of 
Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the Middle East as a result of our increasing 
dependence on foreign oil. How can we be an honest broker in the Middle 
East peace process when we are beholden to Israel's sworn enemy, Saddam 
Hussein, to keep our citizens warm this winter?
  We currently import 600,000 barrels a day from Iraq. The Vice 
President's only answer is to give solar, wind, and biomass energy 
technologies that are not widely available or affordable. We have 
expended $6 billion in a combination of grants and subsidies for 
alternative energy. I am all for these alternative energies, but they 
still consist of less than 4 percent of our energy. It is 
incomprehensible to me that we would fail to recognize that we have to 
rely on our conventional sources--oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, and 
nuclear. The Vice President seems to have forgotten these basic sources 
of energy. As a matter of fact, we need a mix of all of the above.
  In contrast, Governor Bush would put together a comprehensive energy 
policy for America that uses the fuels of today to get the technologies 
of tomorrow. The energy policy would contain three major components: 
First, increased domestic production of oil and natural gas to meet 
today's consumer demands for energy; second, increased use of 
alternative fuels and renewable energy to help us transition into the 
technologies of tomorrow; third, improve energy efficiency to save 
American consumers money and reduce emissions of air pollutants and 
greenhouse gases. Governor Bush would encourage new domestic oil and 
gas exploration right here at home. He has said: The only way to become 
less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil is to explore here at 
home.
  Just opening the ANWR Coastal Plain in my State increases domestic 
production capability by better than a million barrels a day, more than 
twice the amount we currently import from Iraq.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article that 
was in the Christian Science Monitor on October 18 of this year. They 
did a poll on the issue of whether or not ANWR should be open.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 18, 2000]

                    Public Wants SUVs To Guzzle Less

                            (By John Dillin)


                                Abstract

       Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say that with gasoline 
     prices up, they favor government action that would force 
     automakers to boost the gas mileage of the wildly popular 
     sport utility vehicles. Congress has firmly resisted attempts 
     to boost mileage requirements for SUVs.
       Growing public pressure to boost fuel requirements for SUVs 
     comes as something of a surprise. For more than a decade, the 
     vehicles have been family favorites for hauling everything 
     from plywood from Home Depot to camping gear on holiday 
     outings.
       The federal government cooperated with this sleight of hand 
     by classifying minivans and SUVs as ``trucks,'' even though 
     they were being used primarily as passenger vehicles. Since 
     the standard for trucks was only 20.7 miles per gallon, that 
     overall requirement was easier for manufacturers to meet.
                                  ____

       A majority of adults say they'd be willing to drive a more 
     fuel-efficient vehicle to conserve energy. But many also 
     support drilling in Alaskan wildlife refuge.
       The United States could soon get tough on those big, gas-
     hungry SUVs.
       Americans, by a 2-to-1 margin, say that with gasoline 
     prices up, they favor government action that would force 
     automakers to boost the gas mileage of the wildly popular 
     sport utility vehicles. Congress has firmly resisted attempts 
     to boost mileage requirements for SUVs.
       With petroleum imports rising, voters also say they now 
     support opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska 
     for oil and gas exploration. Throwing open ANWR to oil 
     drillers is a sensitive issue in this year's presidential 
     race. Republican George W. Bush is for it. Democrat Al Gore 
     is against it.
       The newest Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll explored a 
     broad range of energy issues with a cross-section of 803 
     likely voters in the US.
       The survey probed the public's willingness to use mass 
     transit and to buy smaller cars to save energy. It looked at 
     who is to blame for rising prices. And it tested the 
     willingness of Americans to use military power to keep oil 
     resources flowing in times of crises.
       There were some sharp differences--often along party 
     lines--in the Monitor/TIPP poll, as well as broad agreements.
       Some of the findings:
       Voters agree that the primary culprits in higher prices for 
     energy are the members of the Organization of Petroleum 
     Exporting Countries (OPEC). Big oil companies and government 
     policy makers also bear a heavy responsibility, voters say.
       By nearly a 3-to-1 margin, voters say that US friends such 
     as oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are not doing enough to 
     keep energy prices down.
       The No. 1 priority for dealing with US energy needs should 
     be the development of new technologies, voters say. New 
     technologies are more important than either boosting US oil 
     production or conservation.
       Growing public pressure to boost fuel requirements for SUVs 
     comes as something of a surprise. For more than a decade, the 
     vehicles have been family favorites for hauling everything 
     from plywood from Home Depot to camping gear on holiday 
     outings.
       But the hefty vehicles drink lots of fuel. The mighty 
     Lincoln Navigator that tips the scales at 5,746 pounds, for 
     example, gets just 12 miles per gallon in the city, 17 on the 
     highway, with its 5.4-liter V8 engine.
       The more-popular Chevy Blazer--a mere two tons of steel, 
     rubber, and plastic--gets just 15 miles per gallon in the 
     city, 18 on the highway.
       Under federal rules, automobiles from each manufacturer are 
     required to get an overall average of 27.5 miles per gallon--
     twice what cars got in 1974. But as carmakers have downsized 
     and lightened their vehicles to meet this standard, consumers 
     who wanted more size and power switched to minivans and SUVs.
       The federal government cooperated with this sleight of hand 
     by classifying minivans and SUVs as ``trucks,'' even though 
     they were being used primarily as passenger vehicles. Since 
     the standard for trucks was only 20.7 miles per gallon, that 
     overall requirement was easier for manufacturers to meet.
       The impact on America's gasoline usage, however, was 
     significant. Average vehicle performance in the US has fallen 
     steadily from a high 26.2 m.p.g. in 1987 to only 24.6 m.p.g. 
     in 1998. Today's shortages and higher gas prices are one 
     result.
       On this issue--as on several energy issues--there are often 
     differences of opinion among voters.
       A college history professor in California, one of those 
     surveyed in this poll, says she is sympathetic with those who 
     buy the larger vehicles.
       ``It's not really fair to criticize SUV owners,'' she says. 
     ``I don't care what anybody's driving as long as they're not 
     driving over me. . . . Sometimes people need a larger car for 
     extenuating circumstances.''
       While 63 percent of likely voters in this poll favored 
     boosting the mileage requirement for SUVs, 29 percent 
     disagreed.
       Sentiment to boost mileage requirements was highest among 
     liberals (77 percent favor higher mileage rules), Democrats 
     (74 percent) and those between the ages of 55 and 64 (75 
     percent). Support for changing the law was weakest among 
     conservatives (only 54 percent favor a change), younger 
     Americans (59 percent), and Republicans (52 percent).
       Another surprise was the solid support (54 percent to 38 
     percent) for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge. ANWR's coastal plain could hold as much oil as 
     Alaska's highly productive Prudhoe Bay.
       Yet the refuge also shelters polar and grizzly bears, 
     caribous, wolves, and many other species in one of the most 
     pristine areas in the US.
       Raghavan, Mayur, president of TIPP, a unit of TechnoMetrica 
     Market Intelligence, conducted the poll for the Monitor. Mr. 
     Mayur says divisions are sharp on this issue:
       ``To drill or not to drill the Arctic refuge is the same as 
     asking are you a Bush supporter or a Gore supporter.''

[[Page S11412]]

       Other poll responses:
       Who is responsible? The public points the finger primarily 
     at OPEC (34 percent), but oil companies (28 percent), and the 
     government's energy policies (21 percent) also shoulder the 
     blame for rising prices.
       A sales representative in Conyers, Ga., says higher prices 
     should have been foreseen with a growing economy, and Gore 
     should have tackled it. Ultimately, she said, ``oil companies 
     are probably more responsible than anyone else.''
       Will fuel prices hurt? Voters are almost evenly split on 
     whether rising fuel prices will hurt the economy. About 49 
     percent say yes, 45 percent say no.
       Bush or Gore on energy? When it comes to energy policy, 
     voters think Governor Bush will probably do a better job 
     making sure the US has sufficient energy supplies. They 
     prefer him on this issue by 44 percent to 33 percent over 
     Vice President Gore.
       Pay more for cars? By 57 percent to 38 percent, Americans 
     say they would pay $1,000 more for a comparable vehicle that 
     had greater fuel efficiency.
       Buy smaller cars? Most Americans--75 percent--say that with 
     rising gas prices, they would be willing to drive smaller 
     cars to achieve better mileage.
       Use mass transit? By a 62 percent to 27 percent margin, 
     Americans say they would use mass transit or car pool to save 
     fuel.
       Use military force? In times of crisis, Americans would be 
     willing to use U.S. military power to keep oil supplies 
     flowing--but the issue is clearly divisive. Those favoring 
     military force (48 percent) are nearly equaled by those who 
     oppose (43 percent).

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Let me read a portion:

       Another surprise was a solid support (54 percent to 38 
     percent) for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge. ANWR's coastal plain could hold as much oil as 
     Alaska's highly productive Prudhoe Bay.

  I think that is a significant indication of the public posture and 
the change. As we have noted for some time, Vice President Gore is very 
much opposed to opening this area. This body, in 1995, passed 
legislative action authorizing the opening of ANWR, but the President 
vetoed that action. We have today a clear indication of support from a 
majority of Americans who now favor responsible drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  For the sake of keeping this matter in balance, I remind my 
colleagues there are 19 million acres in that area. Out of that 19 
million acres, which is about the size of the State of South Carolina, 
9 million acres has been set aside in a refuge, 8.5 million acres has 
been set aside in a wilderness. This is in perpetuity. Congress left 
out 1.5 million to be determined at a future date whether it should be 
open for exploration. Geologists say it is the most likely area in 
North America where a major oil field might be discovered, and there 
might be as much as 16 billion barrels in that field. That would equate 
to what we import from Saudi Arabia for a 30-year period of time. Some 
of the environmentalists say it is only a 200-day supply. Isn't that in 
error? That is assuming all other oil production in the world stops.
  Prudhoe Bay came on about 23 years ago. It has been producing about 
20 percent of the total crude oil produced in this Nation for that 
period of time. They said it was only going to produce 10 billion 
barrels. It has produced 12 billion barrels so far and still produces a 
million barrels a day.
  The prospects of finding oil domestically, in the volumes we are 
talking about, in this small sliver of the Coastal Plain are very good. 
As a consequence, it is rather comforting to note that a distinguished 
periodical such as the Christian Science Monitor should conduct an 
independent poll and find that 54 percent of Americans solidly support 
opening up ANWR for drilling; 38 percent are opposed.
  One other point that deserves consideration has been underplayed by 
the media and underplayed by the administration. That is the situation 
with regard to natural gas. Governor Bush's energy plan is more than 
just increasing the domestic supply of oil. He would also expand access 
to natural gas on Federal lands and build more gas pipeline. Even the 
Vice President has said natural gas is vital for home heating and 
electricity and fuel for the future. Mr. President, 50 percent of U.S. 
homes, or 56 million homes, use natural gas for heating. It provides 15 
percent of the Nation's electric power; and 95 percent of our new 
electric power plants will be powered by natural gas as a fuel, 
partially of choice but partially of necessity. You cannot build a 
coal-fired plant; you cannot build a nuclear plant; you cannot build a 
new hydroelectric plant. Where are you going to go? You are going to go 
to natural gas. You can get a permit. But all the emphasis of the 
electric industry is towards natural gas. Putting on more pressure 
increases the prices, as I said, from $2.16 a year ago to just over 
$4.50 today. The ratepayers are going to be paying this. They just have 
not seen it yet. It has not been included in your electric bills, but 
it will be very soon, and you will feel it in your heating bill.

  The administration has refused to allow exploration or production of 
natural gas on Federal lands. There are huge areas of the overthrust 
belt in Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado that have been off 
limits. The administration has withdrawn about 60 percent of the 
productive area for oil and gas discoveries since 1992.
  The difficulty we are having here is, as they put Federal lands off 
limits to new natural gas production, we find ourselves with simply no 
place to go other than the offshore areas of Texas and Louisiana and 
the offshore areas of Mississippi and Alabama as the major areas of OCS 
activity. My State of Alaska and California are off limits; the East 
Coast is off limits. They have withdrawn huge areas from our Forest 
Service--roadless areas. They have put on a moratorium from OCS 
drilling until 2012 in many areas. The Vice President would even cancel 
existing oil and gas leases. Where is the energy going to come from?
  The Vice President said during his first debate:

       We have to bet on the future and move away from the current 
     technologies to have a whole new generation of more 
     efficient, cleaner energy technologies.

  I buy that, and so does the American public. But he forgets to be 
specific: Where? How? Why? How much? Where are you going to get the 
energy?
  I think we all agree in this case our energy strategy should include 
improved energy efficiency as well as expanded use of alternative fuels 
and renewable energy. But we are still going to need energy from oil, 
natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear, and we are not bringing these 
other sources into the mix.
  The Vice President said he would make a bet. He will bet on 
diminishing the supply of conventional fossil fuels such as oil and 
natural gas. That is his bet, that you would like that; that you would 
be more than willing to pay higher prices for energy and make 
renewables more competitive. You would like that. He will support 
higher energy taxes, just as he did in 1993 when he cast the tie-
breaking vote in this body to raise the gasoline tax.
  This is in his book ``Earth In The Balance.'' Clearly, he wants to 
raise energy prices to effect conservation. But the reality is, as we 
put more central controls on energy use, he would have us set a 
standard for each part of your everyday life. He would tell you what 
kind of energy you could use, how much of it you could use, how much 
you would have to pay for it. That is part of it. That is in his book.
  By contrast, Governor Bush would harness America's innovation to use 
the energy resources of today to give us the technologies of tomorrow. 
Governor Bush will set aside the up-front funds from leasing Federal 
lands for oil and gas, so-called bid bonuses, to be earmarked for basic 
research into renewable energy. Production royalties for oil and gas 
leases will be invested in energy conservation and low-income family 
programs such as LIHEAP and other weatherization assistance.
  Using new tax incentives, Governor Bush will expand the use of 
renewable energy in the marketplace, building on a successful 
experience in the State of Texas. As a result of Governor Bush's 
efforts on electricity restructuring, Texas will be one of the largest 
markets for renewable energy, some 2,000 new megawatts.
  Governor Bush will maintain existing hydroelectric dams 
and streamline the FERC relicensing program. We know the current 
administration wants to take down some of the dams in the Pacific 
Northwest. Governor Bush will responsibly address the risks posed by 
global climate change through investing in getting clean energy 
technologies to the market.

  The Vice President would rather have us ratify and implement a costly 
and flawed Kyoto Protocol that puts the United States at an economic 
disadvantage.

[[Page S11413]]

  Some of us remember the vote we had here with respect to climate 
change and the Kyoto Protocol--the Byrd/Hagel Resolution. I think it 
was 95-0. The administration asked for our opinion. We are a body of 
advice and consent. We gave our advice. I think that vote pretty much 
indicates a lack of consent. That particular proposal exempts the 
largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and India.
  In conclusion, the bottom line is there is a clear contrast between 
the candidates on the subject of energy policy. The Vice President 
wants to raise prices to limit supply of fossil energy which makes up 
currently over 80 percent of our energy needs. We wish it were less, 
but that is the reality. He wants to replace it with solar, wind, 
biomass--technologies that are promising but they are simply not 
available or affordable at this time.
  Governor Bush will expand domestic production of oil and natural gas, 
ensuring affordable and secure supplies, reducing energy costs, and 
keeping inflation at bay. Governor Bush will use the energy of today to 
yield cleaner, more affordable energy sources of tomorrow.
  The choice for consumers is very clear.
  Let me leave you with one thought with regard to our foreign policy. 
Currently we are importing about 600,000 barrels a day from Iraq. I 
know the occupant of the chair recalls in 1991 and 1992 when we fought 
a war, the Persian Gulf war, we had 147 American service personnel who 
gave their lives in that war, with 427 wounded; we had 23 taken 
prisoner. How quickly we forget.
  Now we are over there enforcing, if you will, an aerial blockade, a 
no-fly zone. We have flown over 300,000 sorties, individual missions, 
enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq. We have bombed; we have fired; we 
have intercepted. Fortunately, we have not suffered a loss. But what 
kind of foreign policy is it where we buy his oil, put it in our 
airplanes, and go over and bomb him? I leave you with that thought, and 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The distinguished Senator from 
Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________