Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise to respond very briefly on behalf of this Senator, and I think I speak for the entire body when I say thank you to Senator Spence Abraham from Michigan for his contributions, his leadership, his effectiveness. My grandfather Hagel used to occasionally pay the highest compliment to an individual when he would say: He is a good man. Well, Spence Abraham is a good man. He will go on to do other very significant things with his life, with his talent, with his leadership. We will all be well served. It will impact the future of his children and our children, just as his service in the Senate has made this a better institution and a stronger Nation. I have been privileged to serve with Spence Abraham, be his seatmate here on the Senate floor, and become a good friend. Of that friendship and that service, I am proud. I thank Senator Abraham. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this morning to reflect on the service of our 11 colleagues who will be completing their Senate service in the next few days. Hugh Sidey, one of the great journalists and political observers of our time, who covered eight Presidents and became well acquainted with those Presidents, once said that ``politics, after all is said and done, is the business of belief and enthusiasm. Hope energizes, doubt destroys. Hopelessness is not our heritage.'' So said Mr. Sidey. Aside from the fact that he has Nebraska roots, which I suspect reflects some element of his good judgment, he is right. As we reflect on the service of these 11 individuals who will be leaving this institution, the one common denominator that anchored the 11 was commitment to something bigger than themselves: service to this country. The 11 individuals reflect our society, as does this body, from the States they represented, to their backgrounds, to their commitments. That, too, represented what may be this country's greatest strength and that is its diversity. As Tom Daschle mentioned last night at the Supreme Court dinner, in the history of this institution, only 1,853 men and women have ever served here. Now, we will increase that number on January 3. But the 11 colleagues and friends who leave this institution are among those 1,853 individuals who have served and are now serving. I think it is worthy to bring some note to these 11 individuals. They have been honored and recognized throughout this year, and very appropriately so, individually by many Members of this body, but I wish, in the few minutes I have, to maybe tie some more general themes together about why these 11 men have been so important together to this body. We begin by asking the question: Who are these 11 bold, different, distinguished citizens? Well, first, they are from all parts of the country. They are of different religions. They are fathers, husbands, brothers, uncles, and grandfathers. Scattered among these 11, of course, are Republicans and Democrats, maybe liberals, maybe some conservatives, and maybe some moderates. As we look further, we find the veterans--World War II veterans, Vietnam war veterans. One among them is my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Senator Bob Kerrey, who holds the Congressional Medal of Honor. We have war heroes and veterans among these 11. We have former Governors, former attorneys general, ambassadors, businessmen, journalists, lawyers, and bankers--all representing the fiber of this country, all representing the different universes of this country that tie us together as a nation. Surely among the 11 is one of the preeminent public servants of our time, Senator Moynihan from New York. At a time when the world peers in the large window of the front room of American politics--in some cases they may be bewildered by what they are seeing in this country, that we can't seem to elect a President--it is even more important that we spend some time reflecting on these 11 individuals because, as we know, this country will produce a President. That President will govern. That President will be effective. And the institution of the U.S. Senate will be very much a part of assisting that President in governing this country, which has immense consequences for the world. If there is a question about unsteadiness in this country or our institutions, again we need only reference the 11 Senators who will be leaving this body because there was nothing unsteady about these 11 individuals. They were anchored to a Constitution that has been the roadmap for this great country for over 200 years, and that has ensured the liberties, the privileges, and the rights that these 11 individuals fought for, debated over, and made stronger. These 11 Senators brought unique experience and perspectives. They applied those in their own ways and in their own individual styles, which again has added to the richness of the culture of this institution and reflects the richness and the culture of this country. Every new Senator we bring on and every Senator who leaves has had a part in stitching the fabric--and continues to stitch the fabric--of this country. At a time when we question the institutional structures, the procedures and the processes, we must not forget that it is the individual that has made this country what it is. De Tocqueville wrote about it in the mid-19th century. When he observed America and wrote at that point the most authoritative document on America, he said the most amazing thing about America was the magic of America. He said it was the individual. It was individual commitment. It was freedom. That was the magic of America. Arnold Toynbee, who probably wrote the most definitive book on the civilization of mankind as he documented the 21 civilizations of the world, wrote that each civilization begins with a challenge and a response. Surely, as we reflect on these 11 Senators, each of their lives is a remarkable story. Each has been, as Toynbee wrote in his study of history, a challenge and response. That is what representative government is about. But it cannot function without the individual commitment of people such as these 11 distinguished Americans who leave this body. Yes, they helped chart a course for this country. And, yes, they helped fulfill the destiny of this country. Yes, they understood exactly what Hugh Sidey said--that hopelessness is not our heritage. They understood that as well as any 11 people in the history of this country. But they did something equally remarkable in that they inspired others. I suspect, as you go across those 11 States represented by these 11 Senators, and go into schools and talk to teachers and young men and women who watched Pat Moynihan, Bob Kerrey, Frank Lautenberg, and Connie Mack, they would have a story. They would have some dynamic to their personal lives that somehow would be tied back to leadership and the inspiration of one of these 11 Senators. In the end, that is our highest obligation in public service. In the end, that is the most important thing we can do. Not just for the Record but because it is important that we hear the list of these names, I would like to read the list of these 11 Senators: Senator Spence Abraham from Michigan; Senator John Ashcroft from Missouri; Senator Richard Bryan from Nevada; Senator Slade Gorton from Washington; Senator Rod Grams from Minnesota; Senator Bob Kerrey from Nebraska; Senator Frank Lautenberg from New Jersey; Senator Connie Mack from Florida; Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan from New York; Senator Chuck Robb from Virginia; And Senator Bill Roth from Delaware. They have accomplished, each in their own way but, more importantly, together as part of this institution, a remarkable number of things in their careers. Many will go on and do other things. All will stay active. All will stay committed to this country. What they have done, for which we all are grateful and for which America is grateful, deserves immense recognition; that is, they leave this great institution stronger and better because of their service. Therefore, they leave America stronger and better because of their service. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me some time to talk about our colleagues whom all of us will miss. I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11 a.m. with Senators Hagel and Durbin in control of the time. Following morning business, the Senate will begin postcloture debate on the bankruptcy conference report, with a vote scheduled to occur tomorrow at 4 p.m., or earlier if any of the remaining debate time is yielded back. It is still hoped that the remaining business of the Congress can be completed this week, and therefore additional votes can be expected. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator. That is the intent of the leadership. Both leaders are working their way through this, and we are all hopeful that will produce some tangible, productive results. Thank you.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, as you know, current law requires that for a military retiree to receive his VA disability compensation he must waive an equal part of his retirement pay. This issue is frequently referred to as ``concurrent receipt,'' because it would involve the simultaneous receipt of two types of benefits. The service connected disabled military retiree is the only person that is forced to pay for their own disability compensation. A worker in private industry is not forced to pay for his own disability. Likewise, local, State and federal civil servants, appointed and elected officials are not forced to pay for their own disability compensation. For several years I have worked closely with military retirees and veterans organizations to change the law to permit receipt of all deserved benefits. This is a step that this Congress must take. It is unfair that a person who serves his or her country and has a service- connected disability can't draw both benefits. Legislation to fix concurrent receipt has been introduced during the past several Congresses. Last year, thanks in great part to the efforts of the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate took a first step towards fixing this problem by authorizing a concurrent receipt provision for severely disabled military retirees. The existing concurrent receipt restrictions, however, remain in effect. This year, the Senate again made an effort to solve the concurrent receipt problem. During debate on the Department of Defense Authorization bill, the Senate included an amendment to completely repeal concurrent receipt laws. This would allow all veterans to receive their full disability compensation along with their retired pay. When the conference report to the Defense Authorization bill reached desk of the conferees, however, they were faced with an insurmountable financial problem. The Defense Authorization conference report that is being considered today contains crucial provisions that will enable the government to fulfill its first priority: to provide a strong national defense. In addition, the Act contains significant and necessary increases in overall defense spending, especially directed at improving morale and retention. One of the most important of these provisions is an amendment, fulfilling a broken promise, which will give the same health care benefits to military retirees as those available to active duty service members. Therefore, I will support the Defense Authorization bill. However, I want to take this opportunity to declare my intentions and to call upon my colleagues for their support. As part of the annual budget process next year, I will work with my colleague from Nevada, Mr. Reid, who has dedicated a great deal of time to this effort, to include budget cap room for concurrent receipt. I want to remind my colleagues, the service connected disabled military retiree is the only person who is forced to pay for his own disability compensation. It is simply unfair that a person who serves his or her country and has a service-connected disability can't draw both his VA and disability benefits concurrently. This is a situation that must be fixed and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that our servicemembers, active duty and retired, receive the full benefits that they deserve. housing needs

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4975, which is at the desk.

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 918, S. 3062.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statement relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration en bloc of the following reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee: Calendar No. 864, H.R. 2302; Calendar No. 865, H.R. 3030; Calendar No. 866, H.R. 3454; Calendar No. 867, H.R. 3909; Calendar No. 868, H.R. 3985; Calendar No. 869, H.R. 4157; Calendar No. 870, H.R. 4169; Calendar No. 871, H.R. 4447; Calendar No. 872, H.R. 4448; Calendar No. 873, H.R. 4534; Calendar No. 874, H.R. 4449; Calendar No. 875, H.R. 4484; Calendar No. 876, H.R. 4517; Calendar No. 877, H.R. 4554; Calendar No. 878, H.R. 4615; Calendar No. 879, H.R. 4658; Calendar No. 880, H.R. 4884; Calendar No. 881, S. 2804. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to any of these bills be printed, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in session on Tuesday for morning business and possible consideration of an appropriations conference report. On Wednesday, there will be up to 7 hours of debate on the conference report to accompany trafficking victims. Senator Thompson will make the point of order against the report and a vote is expected relative to appealing the ruling of the Chair and adoption of the conference report, both of which will occur late afternoon on Wednesday. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 2 p.m. on Tuesday, October 10. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business for up to 2 hours, with the time controlled in the following fashion: the first hour under the control of Senator Durbin or his designee, with 30 minutes under the control of Senator Graham of Florida; the second hour under the control of Senator Thomas or his designee.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, Senators Wyden and Craig have a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the 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.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Energy Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2389 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Governmental Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 2938 and the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the 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.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 917, S. 2686.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations reported by the Armed Services Committee, Nos. 717 through 755, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, any statements relating to the nominations be printed in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, few individuals ever touch the lives of people like the late Mike McKevitt did. Former Congressman and Assistant U.S. Attorney General James D. ``Mike'' McKevitt passed away last week here in Washington, DC. He was a remarkable man, a selfless public servant, and a loyal friend. He was always working on behalf of others to make the world better. His positive attitude, personal warmth and absolute sense of fair play were most unique in a far too often cynical, and mean-spirited town called Washington, DC. For 30 years, he rose above the pettiness, nonsense and nastiness that often dominates the environment of the world's most powerful city. He made it more fun to be here. He made it all seem more noble than most of it is. We will all miss Mike McKevitt. We are all better because of him. Our prayers and thoughts go out to his wonderful wife Judy and his daughters and grandchildren. I ask unanimous consent that the attached obituary from The Washington Post on Congressman McKevitt be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Title XII describes the relationship between American universities and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), with respect to USAID's international agriculture development programs. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden. This bill revitalizes the relationship between our universities, their public and private partners, and USAID. It reflects the fact that agriculture development work has changed dramatically in the past few years. For example, universities have long been important partners in the United States' efforts to promote agricultural development and decrease world hunger, but universities are no longer ivory towers. They now work with a variety of public and private partners to carry out agriculture-related assistance projects. This bill authorizes universities to utilize such partners when carrying out projects for USAID. The bill also reflects the fact that agriculture development work increasingly focuses on income generation, rather than simply on household subsistence production. In addition to helping farmers grow enough to feed their immediate families, foreign agricultural assistance should also help farmers market and sell their products, and maximize their household income. This bill recognizes this new focus on income generation as a goal of American foreign agricultural assistance programs. Lastly, the bill reflects the fact that sustainable development has increased in importance. Environmental and natural resource issues should be considered as part of the big picture in agriculture development. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following these remarks.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Title XII describes the relationship between American universities and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), with respect to USAID's international agriculture development programs. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden. This bill revitalizes the relationship between our universities, their public and private partners, and USAID. It reflects the fact that agriculture development work has changed dramatically in the past few years. For example, universities have long been important partners in the United States' efforts to promote agricultural development and decrease world hunger, but universities are no longer ivory towers. They now work with a variety of public and private partners to carry out agriculture-related assistance projects. This bill authorizes universities to utilize such partners when carrying out projects for USAID. The bill also reflects the fact that agriculture development work increasingly focuses on income generation, rather than simply on household subsistence production. In addition to helping farmers grow enough to feed their immediate families, foreign agricultural assistance should also help farmers market and sell their products, and maximize their household income. This bill recognizes this new focus on income generation as a goal of American foreign agricultural assistance programs. Lastly, the bill reflects the fact that sustainable development has increased in importance. Environmental and natural resource issues should be considered as part of the big picture in agriculture development. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following these remarks.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the one driving factor in the advancement of mankind has been energy. Fire, oil for heat and lamps, water mills, coal, electricity, refined oil, hydro power, nuclear power. Advancements in energy have fueled the great advancements of civilization. Today, energy touches every facet of our lives. It heats, cools, powers, and lights our homes, our places of business, our schools, and our hospitals. It fuels our modes of transportation whether on road, rail, sea, or air. It powers up our computers, the Internet and the information superhighway. It goes into the production of food, medicine, clothing, and every consumer product ranging from household appliances to health and beauty products. It allows the stock markets to open each morning around the world. It powers the transactions of commerce and business. It fuels the planes, ships, tanks, submarines, and weapons that protect America. Energy is the great connector. It fuels the productive capacity of the world. It affects world stability. Energy is serious business. America must have a national energy policy that ensures we have reliable, stable, and affordable sources of energy. This cannot be neglected. To do so leaves our Nation vulnerable on all fronts. Energy policy ties together America's economy, standard of living, national security, and our geopolitical strategic interests around the world--and our future. Perhaps the area where energy has the most immediate and visible effect is on the pocketbooks of individual Americans and the economic growth of our Nation. Oil prices have more than tripled in less than 2 years, to nearly $37 a barrel this week--the highest price since the buildup to the Persian Gulf war in November of 1990. The President of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, said last Friday that the price of oil may temporarily hit $40 a barrel this winter. I suspect we might see $50 a barrel in the next few months. American consumers have felt this most immediately at the gas pimp. This winter, consumers are likely to feel an even stronger bite when they heat their homes. Natural gas and home heating oil prices are also on the rise. The prices for natural gas, which is used to heat 58 million homes, have doubled since the beginning of the year. Customers of heating oil, including more than one-third of the homeowners in the Northeastern part of the United States may pay more than $2 a gallon-- or twice the current price--to heat their homes this winter. As energy prices rise this winter, Americans will again be reminded of the lessons we learned in the 1970s about the volatility of energy prices and the impact on our economy. The forecasts are not optimistic. Said Leo Drollas, chief economist at the Center for Global Energy Studies, ``I think the only thing we can do is pray for a very warm winter.'' Praying for a warm winter is not an energy policy. The concern over natural gas prices is so great that on Wednesday, several of our Nation's Governors met in Columbus, Ohio, to discuss the ``natural gas crisis.'' And it is not just gasoline, natural gas and heating oil prices that are affected by the current energy predicament. It is all energy. Over the past 12 months, costs paid by consumers for all forms of energy have increased by 13 percent. High energy costs ripple through the economy. They drive up inflation. Then deflation. The Consumer Price Index has risen 3.4 percent in the last year, with energy price increases responsible for nearly one-quarter of that increase. It also saps the strength of our economy. Energy fuels economic growth. ``Oil shocks'' send a shock through the economy, increasing prices for everything that uses energy. It is a draining force on our society and economy. When consumers are forced to spend more on energy, they spend less on other items. Higher energy prices increase the cost of doing business, of moving goods, of manufacturing, and of farming. We are seeing the beginning of the consequences of higher fuel costs in Europe. Protests virtually shut down Great Britain last week, at one point more than 90 percent of their petrol stations were dry. These protests blocked transportation and caused disruption in medical services, postal delivery, education, and food supply. As a matter of fact, for the first time since the years after World War II, Great Britain had to ration food. Great Britain, one of the great powers of our time had to ration food at the supermarkets last week, and they introduced a policy of one loaf of bread per customer. The British Chambers of Commerce estimated that the protests cost Britain's economy $351 million per day. These protests erupted throughout Europe. In almost every country in Europe there were protests. High energy prices will dramatically affect the United States, Europe, Japan, and other industrialized nations. But these industrialized nations' economies are better prepared to cushion the heavy blow than the recovering economies in Asia, developing countries, and emerging market economies. These nations, including South Korea and Taiwan, still depend on such heavy industries as steel production for their economic growth. Studies have shown that if oil prices do not fall quickly, these economies could lose at least 2 percent of their gross national product this year. One of Europe's central bankers has predicted that the current spike in oil prices could cut a full percentage point off the GDP growth expected around the world during the next 12 months. This is an awesome number when you step back and understand what that means. And what that means is catastrophe. The President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, echoed these fears in an interview in the International Herald Tribune. He predicted a $10 shift in oil prices could decrease global economic growth by at least one-half of a percentage point. In the United States, a slowdown in economic growth due to higher energy prices will have a negative impact on our Federal budget. The assumptions for projected Federal budget surpluses over the next 10 years do not take into account what would happen if high energy prices or energy shortages stalled our economy. Where then would be our proposals to finance new prescription drug plans for Medicare recipients, provide more funding for education, grapple with the restructuring of our entitlement programs, and much- needed funds to improve our Nation's military? Where then would the money come from? The money needed to fund these areas of the Federal budget and pay down our national debt would have gone up in smoke-- literally. Other countries would be affected in the same way. High energy prices affect nations the same way they affect individual households--the more money spent on energy, the less there is available for other priorities. But this has broader implications than budgetary issues. Increasing energy prices will affect efforts to improve the environment. In recent years, we have made great strides in working with developing nations to help them use responsible measures to grow their economies. But they will do what they must do to survive. If their national self-interests are at stake, they will clear cut forests to grow food, and they will not consider environmental measures. They will draw natural resources from wherever they can get them. They will abandon efforts to upgrade to cleaner technologies and stay with their dirty smokestacks and other energy-producing methods that damage the environment, if energy costs go too high. The price of oil also has broad national security implications, as you know so well. These broad national security implications to the United States are there because we are so reliant on foreign sources for our supply of crude oil. During 1973, at the peak of the energy crisis, we relied on foreign sources of oil for 35 percent of our domestic supply. Since that time, we have become more--not less--dependent on foreign oil. Today, we import almost 60 percent of the oil used in the United States. The Department of Energy estimates that we will at least be 65-percent reliant on foreign oil by 2020. The response to the current high oil prices by the Clinton administration has been to try and cajole oil-exporting nations to increase production in an effort to lower prices. U.S. Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson has said, regarding the pressure on OPEC nations: ``Our quiet diplomacy is working.'' I ask, what diplomacy? Crude oil is at a record high. We import more oil than we did during the energy crisis in the 1970s, spending more than $300 million a day. Petroleum accounts for one-third of the U.S. total trade deficit. Who are we kidding? This has bigger implications than high gas prices. In February 1995, President Clinton issued the following statement: . . . the nation's growing reliance on imports of crude oil and refined petroleum products threatens the nation's security because they increase U.S. vulnerability to oil supply interruptions . . . I concur with the Department's recommendation that the Administration continue its present efforts to improve U.S. energy security. Yet through the Clinton-Gore administration policies, this administration has discouraged, and in many cases blocked, American oil and gas producers from increasing domestic production. Since that time, we have increased our use of oil and turned more and more to foreign countries to supply the oil we use. We import 1.5 million barrels of oil more per day than we did 5 years ago. That is an increase of nearly 22 percent in the last 5 years. Therefore, it should not be surprising that President Clinton issued a nearly identical ruling on March 24 of this year, stating again that oil imports threaten U.S. national security. High energy prices also impact the security of other nations and threaten global stability. Energy fuels the productive capacity of national economies. The adverse effect of high energy prices can cause instability in emerging democracies and in market economies, which then can quickly erupt into regional turmoil, conflict, and war, devastating all prospects for growth, prosperity, and for eliminating hunger and poverty. The contributing factors to the current high oil prices demonstrate the geopolitical consequences of energy, and the leverage granted to oil-exporting nations. Prices have increased for oil and natural gas because supply has not kept pace with demand. From 1994 to 1999, global oil consumption grew by almost 10 percent, while production rose only at about 7 percent. Do we have a supply problem? Of course we have a supply problem. When demand stretches supply to the breaking point, the result is rationing. What a dangerous, dangerous development--the rationing of energy. When the price of oil fell dramatically a few years ago, drilling companies cut back on their exploration of both oil and natural gas. They reduced their spending. There was a drastic decline in global drilling during 1998, 1999, and early this year. Astonishingly, there are only about 40 percent as many drilling rigs working today as there were in the early 1980s. Even OPEC nations must constantly drill to offset depletion. Low levels of drilling reflect a capital shortage, and the result is that oil production has been falling continuously in the United States; it is stable or falling in the North Sea; it is falling in most of Latin America; and it is not growing hardly anywhere else in the world. Capital not invested in energy production a few years ago is now reflected in lower supplies and product. During this time, global demand for oil has increased, fueled by a strong U.S. economy--which we all applaud, which we all take advantage of, and which we based projected surpluses on--economic growth in Europe, and a stronger than expected economic recovery in Asia, which are all responsible for this demand. The economic growth of developing nations is a very energy-intensive exercise, we must know. China and India show oil demand growing at nearly 8 percent a year on a sustained basis. This increased demand, coupled with low supplies, has pushed oil reserves near their limits worldwide. Inventories are at low levels. In most industrialized nations, it will take many years to correct the imbalance between supply and demand. In addition to current inventories, the oil industry normally has another cushion to use to meet increased demand. This is called ``spare capacity'' or unused wells that can be called on to produce additional supplies when necessary. Turning on these spigots can help correct the imbalance between supply and demand. However, except for the days of the gulf war, the world's spare capacity is at its lowest point since the days leading up to the 1973 energy crisis--less than 3 million barrels per day. Therefore, the world oil market is very tight and very vulnerable to supply disruptions and price fluctuations. A further tightening of the market could lead to the kind of energy rationing we saw in the 1970s. The situation is even worse in the natural gas market, especially for North America. But correcting imbalances of supply and demand in oil markets is very different from traditional economic models. Oil does not move on a free market. The demand is given--individuals and nations do not have a choice about whether they need energy or not, and oil is still the greatest source of global energy in the world today. Its production is concentrated in the hands of a few who have the ability to control the flow of oil into the market and, thereby, the price of this commodity. This makes oil a political commodity. Our reliance on foreign oil leaves the U.S. vulnerable to the whims of foreign oil cartels. If something happened to threaten this supply, we could not turn on the spigots here in the United States overnight. A tight oil market gives additional leverage to individual oil- exporting nations. Half of the world's spare production capacity today now is in Saudi Arabia. Iraq, interestingly enough--Iraq, whom we bombed almost daily--is the fastest growing source of U.S. oil imports. We import about 750,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq. What if Saddam Hussein were to decide to bully the market by turning off its tap, which currently pumps 2.3 million barrels a day on to the global market? On Monday, he warned that OPEC nations were bowing to pressures from--in his words--``superpowers'' in agreeing to increase production in an attempt to lower prices. He said, ``The superpowers will fasten their grip on oil producing countries.'' This is a very dangerous development. Our allies, of course, would be even more vulnerable to threats from oil-producing nations because Europe and Japan are even more dependent than the U.S. on foreign oil. How did we, the United States, get ourselves into this precarious position? How did we get here? We have bumbled into it because we were not paying attention. Every administration in the last 25 years must share some responsibility for where we are today. But in particular, this administration, the Clinton-Gore administration, has drifted through the last 8 years without an energy policy, content to sit back and enjoy a good economy--of course, to take credit for that economy--but unwilling to prepare our Nation for the challenges ahead and make the tough choices and hard decisions necessary for energy independence. The lack of a Federal energy policy for the last 8 years has worked to decrease U.S. oil production, making American consumers more vulnerable to the volatility of prices set by oil cartels such as OPEC. The wild swings in price over the last 2 years have hurt U.S. oil and gas producers and shut down many drilling wells because of instability in the markets, loss of investment capital, loss of qualified employees, and elimination of the petroleum infrastructure. The lack of an overall policy has made U.S. producers more susceptible to the manipulation of prices by cartels such as OPEC. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March, Denise Bode, an Oklahoma corporation commissioner, discussed the impact of OPEC's manipulation on oil markets: Whatever OPEC's motivation, the impact on American petroleum production is that each time this happens, they make the domestic oil and gas production industry in America a little less predictable, driving away capital, qualified oil field employees and scrapping petroleum infrastructure. . . . The policies of this administration have actually served to discourage and at some point completely block or shut off domestic oil and natural gas production. While oil consumption in the United States has risen by 14 percent since 1992, over the last 8 years U.S. crude oil production has dropped by 17 percent. The number of American jobs in exploring and producing oil and gas has declined by 27 percent. The number of working oil rigs has declined by 77 percent. This administration has failed to encourage viable energy alternatives. They pursue policies promoted by environmentalists with no comprehension or acknowledgment of the consequences of these policies and what these consequences are for real Americans, for our economy, our Nation, and our future. This administration has blocked exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge which could contain 16 billion barrels of domestic crude oil. In 1995, President Clinton vetoed legislation to allow any exploration in Alaska. In 1998, President Clinton closed most of the Federal Outer Continental Shelf to any exploration until the year 2012. Vice President Gore has vowed to prohibit any future exploration for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. Increased Government regulations over the last 8 years have affected investment in our energy industry. Thirty-six oil refineries have been closed in the last 8 years, and no major oil refinery has been built in the last 25 years. This is in part due to the requirements of the Clean Air Act that make it difficult to build or upgrade any refineries. EPA regulation has placed more and more and more burdens on fewer and fewer oil refineries by forcing them to produce reformulated gasoline for different markets. Use of hydroelectric power has been sharply declining due to the onerous regulatory burdens on the industry. This administration does not consider water to be a renewable resource--that is the definition by this administration of ``water''--and has even advocated taking down current valuable hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest that supply power. Nuclear energy has not been promoted as a clean energy alternative by this administration. No new plants are scheduled to begin operating. This administration has steadfastly opposed and recently vetoed legislation that would ensure timely construction of a desperately needed Federal storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. In addition, virtually all nuclear operating licenses are up for renewal by 2015. Yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has indicated it expects no more than 85 of the 103 units will file renewals. That means we will be taking out of current service, at a minimum, 18 nuclear powerplants in the next few years. Where in the world are we going to recover that capacity? Where will that capacity come from? We don't talk about that. Furthermore, this administration, while professing a desire to increase natural gas as a source of energy, works constantly against efforts to increase the availability of domestic natural gas. The National Petroleum Council has identified a critical barrier to increasing supplies of natural gas: Access to over 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves is either off limits or is being severely restricted on multiple-use lands and the Outer Continental Shelf. This administration says, well, use natural gas but just don't drill for it. This administration's budget clearly demonstrates where its energy priorities are. This year's Department of Energy budget, submitted by this administration, has $1.2 billion for climate change activities, but yet it has only $92 million for oil, gas, and energy research and development--a clear statement on where they are with their priorities. An energy policy that emphasizes only some energy sources and priorities without regard for their negative impacts on energy markets threatens the sustainability of this economy, the welfare of our people, the stability of the world, and the future of this country. What can we do to address this problem? Can we address this problem? Of course, we can address this problem. Both the next President and the Congress must pursue a comprehensive energy policy that decreases our reliance on foreign oil by increasing the safe, environmentally sound production of our domestic oil and gas resources and by developing a more diversified supply of energy sources. The answer is not, as Vice President Gore recommended yesterday, to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. These 570 million barrels were set aside to deal with severe disruptions in oil supply caused by war or other national emergencies. The strategic reserve was not created to make up for 8 years of inattention from the Clinton-Gore administration or to make up for the detrimental impact their policies have had on domestic production. The Vice President himself acknowledged in February this statement when he said it would be a ``bad idea''--his words --to tap into the strategic reserve. And so has the President's Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Summers; as has the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan. Furthermore, opening up the strategic reserve will not do anything to address the shortage of home heating oil. Why? The strategic reserve consists of crude oil. It would need to be refined into heating oil, and our refineries are already running at full capacity. If we still had the 36 refineries that were shut down over the last 8 years of this administration, then we might be able to refine that extra oil from the strategic reserve, but it does nothing to help our current situation. It is bad policy, shortsighted policy. In addition to augmenting domestic oil production, the United States must explore other future energy options that will reduce other foreign oil dependency. Our Nation's future is directly connected to energy capacity. If we fail this great challenge, our children and history will judge us harshly and we will leave the world more dangerous than we found it. That is not our heritage. That is not our destiny. It will require bold, forceful, intelligent new leadership. That is America's heritage. That is America's destiny. Mr. President, I yield the floor.