I HOPE IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT SENATOR ROBERTS AND I ARE NOT
           ADVOCATING A RETREAT FROM AMERICA'S GLOBAL LEADERSHIP ROLE AND
           WE'RE NOT ADVOCATING A NEW FORM OF ISOLATIONISM. WE BOTH
           BELIEVE OUR COUNTRY HAS SUBSTANTIAL AND INESCAPEABLE
           SELF-INTERESTS WHICH NECESSITATE OUR LEADERSHIP. HOWEVER, WHEN
           IT COMES TO THE WAY WE EXERCISE THAT LEADERSHIP, A --
           ESPECIALLY WHEN IT INVOLVES MILITARY FORCE, WE DO BELIEVE THAT

           OUR NATIONAL INTERESTS SOMETIMES REQUIRE THAT WE USE THAT
           REALISTIC RESTRAINT. THE ALTERNATIVES, WHETHER A UNILATERALISM
           WHICH IMPOSES DWECT RESOURCE COSTS FAR BEYOND WHAT THE CONGRESS
           AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SHOWN A WILLINGNESS TO FINANCE, OR
           AN ISOLATIONISM WHICH WOULD FAIL TO SECURE OUR NATIONAL
           INTERESTS IN THIS INCREASINGLY INTERCONNECTED WORLD, OR IN OUR
           JUDGMENT, UNACCEPTABLE. OVER THE COURSE OF THESE DIALOGUES,
           SENATOR ROBERTS AND I HAVE BOTH TURNED TO THE FOLLOWING WORDS

           FROM THE EDITOR OF THE PUBLICATION, "NATIONAL INTEREST," OWEN
           HAREGS. HE SAID, "I ADVOCATE RESTRAINT. BECAUSE HE SAID, "EVERY
           DOMINANT POWER IN THE LAST FOUR CENTURIES THAT HAS NOT
           PRACTICED IT, THAT HAS BEEN EXCESSIVELY INTRUSIVE AND
           DEMANDING, HAS ULTIMATELY BEEN CONFRONTED BY A HOS ALTERNATIVE
           COALITION OF OTHER POWERS -- A HOSTILE COALITION OF OTHER
           POWERS. AMERICANS MAY BELIEVE THAT THEIR COUNTRY BEING
           EXCEPTIONAL NEED HAVE NO WORRIES IN THIS RESPECT," HE SAID. "I

           DO NOT AGREE," HE WROTE. "IT'S NOT WHAT AMERICANS THINK OF THE
           UNITED STATES, BUT WHAT OTHERS THINK OF IT THAT WILL DECIDE THE
           MATTER." IT'S INTERESTING, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT ON HIS DESK AT
           THE PENTAGON WHEN HE WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF
           STAFF, GENERAL COLIN POWELL KEPT A QUOTE FROM THE GREAT
           ATHENIAN HISTORIAN THUYCIDES. AND THAT QUOTE SAID THIS, "OF ALL
           MANIFESTATION OF POWER, RESTRAINT IMPRESSS MAN MOST." MR.
           PRESIDENT, WITH THAT, AND WITH GREAT THANKS TO MY DISTINGUISHED

           COLLEAGUE, SENATOR ROBERTS AND TO THE SENATE, I CONCLUDE THESE
           DIALOGUES ON THE GLOBAL ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES. I YIELD THE

           FLOOR, MR. PRESIDENT. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE DISTINGUISHED SENATOR FROM ALABAMA
           IS RECOGNIZED.
           

           MR. SESSIONS: I WOULD THANK THE CHAIR. I HAVE BEEN FASCINATED
           AND INFORMED BY THE KOL IF I THAT'S BEEN ONGOING -- COLLOQUY
           THAT'S BEEN ONGOING BETWEEN THE CHAIR, THE SENATOR FROM CAN
           SARX AND THE SENATOR FROM GEORGIA, BEEN ARREST IN ORDER TO
           SERVE ON THE -- BEEN HONORED TO SERVE ON THE COMMITTEE WITH THE
           TWO OF YOU. IT IS INDEED TIME AND APPROPRIATE THAT WE BEGIN TO
           THINK THROUGH CLEARLY WHAT THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IS,
           WHAT THE ROLE OF CONGRESS IS IN ESTABLISHING THE UNITED STATES

           POLICY. AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT -- THOSE OBSERVATIONS. VERY,
           VERY VALUABLE. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE NEED TO INVOLVE THE
           AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THIS. THE GREAT AMERICAN EXPERIMENT THAT'S
           GUIDED US SO FAR HAS BEEN TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO RULE. WE DON'T
           NEED TO DO IT UNDER THE TABLE WITHOUT FULL AND OPEN DEBATE. AND
           I STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT WE MUST NOT AS A NATION ABDICATE OUR
           ABILITY TO ACT UNILATERALLY BY OURSELVES WITH OUR -- WHEN OUR

           NATIONAL INTEREST IS AT STAKE, ELSE WHY HAVE WE INVESTED SO
           GREATLY TO ESTABLISH THIS MAGNIFICENT MILITARY THAT WE HAVE?
           WE CAN'T RELY ON A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE U.N. WE CAN'T RELY ON
           THE FACT WE MAY -- THAT WE CAN OVERRIDE OR VOID A VETO IN
           SECURITY COUNCIL. SO WE'VE GOT TO BE PREPARED TO TAKE CARE OF
           OUR OWN INTEREST. AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT DIALOGUE. MR.
           PRESIDENT, ENERGY PRICES ARE GOING UP. GASOLINE PRICES ARE UP.
           I DOUBT THERE ARE MANY FAMILIES THAT DON'T SPEND $60 A MONTH ON

           GASOLINE FOR THEIR FAMILY. THOSE WHO COMMUTE, THOSE WHO HAVE
           CHILDREN WITH VEHICLES AND A HUSBAND AND WIFE WORKING MAY HAVE
           TWO OR THREE VEHICLES PER FAMILY AND NOT BE WEALTHY. THEY MAY
           BE PAYING $100 A MONTH OR MORE FOR GASOLINE. IF YOU ARE PAYING
           $60 A MONTH BILL FOR GASOLINE 18 MONTHS AGO, YOU'RE NOW PAYING
           OVER $90 A MONTH. IF YOU WERE PAYING $100 A MONTH LAST YEAR,
           YOU'RE PROBABLY PAYING OVER $150 A MONTH THIS YEAR. THAT IS A

           $5 A MONTH, A $30 A MONTH, PERHAPS MORE IN SOME FAMILIES,
           WITHDRAWN FROM THE USABLE INCOME OF THAT FAMILY. MONEY THAT
           THEY NO LONGER CAN BUY SHOES WITH, A NEW SET OF TIRES FOR THEIR
           CAR, TO GO ON A VACATION WITH THEIR CHILDREN, TAKE THE KIDS TO
           BALL GAME, BUY SHOES FOR THEM TO PLAY SOCCER OR BASKETBALL OR
           BASEBALL OR VOLUNTARILY BALL. THOSE KIND OF THINGS, THAT REAL
           AFTER-TAX MONEY THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAD 15, 18 MONTHS AGO,

           $50 A MONTH EXTRA THEY NO LONGER HAVE TODAY. THAT'S BECAUSE THE
           PRICE OF ENERGY HAS GONE UP. IN ADDITION, BUSINESSES ARE FACING
           THOSE SAME INCREASES. I TRAVELED A FEW MONTHS AGO, A COUPLE OF
           MONTHS AGO WITH A TRUCK DRIVER AND HIS WIFE WHO DRIVE FULL
           TIME, AND I TRAVELED FROM NORTH OF BIRMINGHAM TO CLANTON TO
           MONTGOMERY AND DISCUSSED WITH THEM THE PROBLEMS THEY'RE FACING.

           THEY'RE PAYING UP TO $800 TO $1,000 A MONTH EXTRA FOR FUEL FOR
           THEIR BUSINESS OF OPERATING THEIR TRUCK. AND THEY TRY TO PASS
           IT ON, WHICH INCREASES COSTS DOWN THE ROAD. BUT THEY'RE NOT
           ABLE TO PASS IT ALL ON. IT'S REDUCING THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING.
           SO THEY HAVE IN EFFECT LESS MONEY TO GO TO THE STORE AND BUY
           PRODUCTS WITH. AND WHAT DOES THAT ULTIMATELY MEAN, MR.
           PRESIDENT?
           IT MEANS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LESS WIDGETS BOUGHT. THERE
           ARE GOING TO BE LESS SHOES BOUGHT. THERE ARE GOING TO BE LESS

           NEW CARS BOUGHT, LESS NEW HOUSES BOUGHT, AND MANY OTHER THINGS
           THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE WE WILL THOUGHT BE ABLE TO
           PURCHASE BECAUSE OPEC, THROUGH ITS PRICE-GOUGING CARTEL, HAS
           FIXED THE OIL AND GAS PRICES AND DRIVEN THEM UP TO AN
           EXTRAORDINARY DEGREE. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, IT'S HURTING US.
           WE KNOW THIS. WE KNOW THE ECONOMY APPEARS TO HAVE SOME SLOWING.
           WE KNOW THAT PROFIT MARGINS ACROSS THE BOARD HAVE BEEN

           SHRINKING SIGNIFICANTLY. AND WE KNOW THAT HIGHER ENERGY COSTS
           ARE A BIG REASON FOR THAT. I SAY THAT BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING
           ABOUT SOME VERY, VERY BIG ISSUES. IF YOU DON'T HAVE MONEY TO
           PURCHASE, LET'S SAY YOU PURCHASE EIGHT THINGS THIS MONTH
           INSTEAD OF WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY PURCHASE, TEN, THERE'S
           SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE MADE THOSE OTHER TWO ITEMS. SOMEBODY WOULD
           HAVE SOLD THOSE OTHER TWO ITEMS. THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT

           TODAY. THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT. SO WHAT
           DOES THAT DO TO THE PRODUCING BUSINESS?
           IT PUTS STRESS ON THEM. IT CAN COOL OFF THE THING THAT HAS
           BLESSED US FOR QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS TODAY, AND THAT'S THIS
           ROBUST ECONOMY. KOFI ANNAN, THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE U.N.,
           WROTE AN EDITORIAL RECENTLY. HE POINTS OUT HOW IT HURTS POOR
           NATIONS MORE THAN WEALTHY NATIONS. BUT IT HURTS WEALTHY NATIONS

           TOO. AND WEALTHY NATIONS ARE HURT WHEN POOR NATIONS DON'T HAVE
           MONEY TO BUY PRODUCTS FROM US. WE SELL ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND
           THAT SORT OF THING. SO WHATEVER COOLS OFF THE ENTIRE WORLD
           ECONOMY COOLS OFF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY AND JEOPARDIZES JOBS.
           WHAT IS THIS THAT CAUSED US TO GET TO THIS POINT?
           I WOULD SAY TO YOU WITH REAL CONFIDENCE THAT IT IS THE
           CLINTON-GORE POLICIES, PRIMARILY VICE PRESIDENT AL GORE'S

           ENERGY POLICIES, THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED HERE. THE SIMPLE FACT
           IS THAT THOSE POLICIES ARE DRIVEN BY AND MOTIVATED AT THE
           DEEPEST LEVEL BY HIS ADOPTION OF A RADICAL NO-GROWTH AGENDA
           THAT'S PLAYING IN HIS BOOK. HE SET IT OUT SOME YEARS AGO.
           PEOPLE ARE ASTOUNDED WHO READ THAT BOOK, BECAUSE IT WAS DEEPLY
           REVEALING OF A PHILOSOPHY THAT WE OUGHT TO REDUCE SPENDING ON
           ENERGY AND THAT THAT SOMEHOW DRIVES UP COST. WE'LL USE LESS

           OIL, LESS GAS AND WE'LL RIDE BUY CYCLES AND USE SOLAR CELLS AND
           THOSEZE KIND OF THINGS. AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO MEET OUR
           NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY. THE TROUBLE IS SOLAR CELLS COST FIVE,
           TEN TIMES AS MUCH AS FOSSIL FUELS TO PRODUCE ENERGY. WHO'S
           GOING TO PAY FOR THAT?
           WORKING AMERICANS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT WHILE SOME ELITE
           THOUGHT PEOPLE THINK IT'S A COOL IDEA, THEY'RE NOT PAYING THE
           PRICE FOR IT. THEY CAN AFFORD TO PAY IT PERHAPS. SO WE'RE INTO

           THAT MOOD NOW. AND THIS RADICAL AGENDA IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE
           POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT SYSTEMATICALLY SINCE THIS
           ADMINISTRATION TOOK OFFICE. IT'S BEEN STEADY AND IT'S BEEN
           REGULAR. THEY HAVEN'T SAID IT. THEY HAVEN'T SAID OUR POLICY IS
           TO RAISE PRICES. THEY'RE TOO CLEVER FOR THAT. THEY'RE NOT GOING
           TO ALLOW THAT SPIN TO GET ABOUT. BUT WHAT HAVE THEY DONE
           AGAINST THIS CONSISTENT OPPOSITION OF MEMBERS ON THIS BODY WHO

           HAVE WARNED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT REDUCING PRODUCTION OF
           AMERICAN FUELS WERE GOING TO LEAD US TO A CRISIS?
           WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?
           THEY HAVE -- THEY OPPOSED DRILLING IN THE ANWR REGION OF
           ALASKA, THAT HAS HUGE RESERVES EQUAL TO 30 YEARS PRODUCTION OF
           SAUDI ARABIA, IN THIS ONE LITTLE AREA. IT AMOUNTS TO THE SIZE
           OF DULLES AIR FORCE BASE -- AIRFIELD IN AN AREA THE SIZE OF

           NORTH CAROLINA. A VERY SMALL AREA WITH HUGE RESERVES. THEY
           VETOED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO PRODUCE OIL AND GAS
           THERE, THAT COULD HELP MEET OUR NEEDS OVER VIGOROUS DEBATE IN
           THIS SENATE AND A STRONG MAJORITY VOTE, VETOED BY THE GORE
           ADMINISTRATION. WHAT ELSE?
           THEY STEADFASTLY OPPOSED NUCLEAR POWER. FRANCE HAS GONE TO 60%
           OF THEIR POWER FROM NUCLEAR, MOVING UP TO 80%. INDUSTRIALIZED
           NATIONS REALIZE IT'S THE CLEANEST, SAFEST OF ALL SOURCES OF

           ENERGY, WITH UNLIMITED CAPACITY TO PRODUCE ELECTRICITY, WITH NO
           AIR POLLUTION, VIRTUALLY NO AIR POLLUTION, AND ONLY A SMALL
           AMOUNT OF WASTE, THAT WE COULD EASILY STORE IN THE NEVADA
           DESERT. BUT, OH NO, THE PRESIDENT, CLINTON AND GORE, VICE
           PRESIDENT GORE, VETOED THE ABILITY OF US TO STORE THAT WASTE IN
           NEVADA DESERT, THEREFORE, HELPING SHUT DOWN OUR NUCLEAR ENERGY.
           WE HAVEN'T BROUGHT ON A NUCLEAR PLANT IN OVER 20 YEARS IN THIS
           COUNTRY. WE ARE DENYING OURSELVES THAT CAPACITY TO PRODUCE

           ENERGY. THERE ARE HUGE RESERVES OF NATURAL GAS IN THE ROCKY
           MOUNTAIN AREAS. NATURAL GAS IS THE CLEANEST-BURNING OF ALL OUR
           FOSSIL FUELS, ALL OUR ELECTRIC-GENERATING PLANTS TODAY ARE
           NATURAL GAS PLANTS. AND WE'RE HITTING A CRISIS IN PRODUCTION OF
           NATURAL GAS. THEY REFUSE TO ALLOW THOSE FEDERAL LANDS IN THE
           ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREAS, ALMOST ALL OF IT OWNED BY THE FEDERAL
           GOVERNMENT, TO PRODUCE NATURAL GAS, WHICH ISN'T A DANGEROUS
           FUEL TO PRODUCE. IT DOESN'T POUR OIL ALL OUT ON THE GROUND.

           IT'S AN EVAP RA ALTERNATIVE GAS AND IT'S SAFE TO -- EVAPORATIVE
           GAS AND IT'S SAFE TO PRODUCE. THEY WERE OPPOSED DRILLING
           OFFSHORE. IN FACT, VICE PRESIDENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE DURING HIS
           CAMPAIGNING PROMISED NOT ONLY TO NOT APPROVE ANY ADDITIONAL
           OFFSHORE DRILINGZ OF NATURAL GAS, BUT TO CONSIDER ROLLING BACK
           EXISTING LEASES THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED. HOW ARE WE GOING
           TO MEET OUR ENERGY NEEDS FOR NATURAL GAS IF WE CAN'T PRODUCE IT?

           THERE ARE MANY OTHER AREAS IN WHICH WE HAVE THROUGH REGULATION
           -- WE'VE BASICALLY SHUT OFF COAL AS A VIABLE OPTION FOR
           EXPANDING OUR ENERGY NEEDS. AND IN FACT, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE MUCH
           MORE EFFICIENT THAN WE'VE EVER BEEN WITH ELECTRIC ENERGY, WE
           NEED MORE. THE PROJECTIONS ARE WE'LL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL
           INCREASE IN DEMAND EVEN THOUGH WE ARE IMPROVING OUR EFFICIENCY
           STEADILY. SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE ARE FACING. THE PROBLEM IS
           THAT WHEN OPEC REALIZED OUR DEMAND WAS INCREASING AND THE WORLD

           DEMAND WAS INCREASING AND OUR OWN DOMESTIC PRODUCTION WAS
           DECREASING 14% WHILE THE DEMANDS WERE GOING UP 18% OR 20%, THEY
           WERE ABLE TO REDUCE PRODUCTION, FORCE THE PRICE UP TO
           EXORBITANT LEVELS, AND MAKE THEMSELVES RICH OFF OF THIS. IN
           FACT, IT WAS A POLITICAL DECISION BY GOVERNMENTAL LEADERS TO
           FORCE THE PRICE UP. IT WAS NOT EVEN A FREE-MARKET DECISION. IT
           WAS A POLITICAL DECISION BY THE LEADERS OF THESE OIL-PRODUCING

           NATIONS WHO, BECAUSE OF OUR FAILURE TO PRODUCE, HAD BECOME
           DEPENDENT ON THEIR OIL. AND THEY COULD DEMAND WHAT THECHTED TO
           IN PRICE. OUR POLITICIANS LOST TO THEIR POLITICIANS. THEIR
           POLITICIANS BEAT OUR POLITICIANS. AND WHO'S PAYING THE PRICE?
           THE AMERICAN CITIZEN WHEN HE GOES TO THE GAS PUMP, WHEN HE BUYS
           HIS HEATING OIL, WHEN HE GOES AND BUYS A PRODUCT THAT'S MORE
           EXPENSIVE TODAY THAN IT WAS EARLIER BECAUSE INCREASED GASOLINE

           PRICES IN THE WHOLE PRODUCTION SYSTEM. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED.
           WE HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS. AND IT'S NOT AS IF -- TO ME,
{END: 2000/10/03 TIME: 19-45 , Tue.  106TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}