|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE | |
 October 5, 2000  |
|
|
In the fourth part of the vice presidential debate, Senator Lieberman and Secretary Cheney discuss a national energy policy, environmental issues and the Social Security guarantee.
|
|
Debating oil and energy policy | |||||||||||||||||||
|
MR. SHAW: Senator Lieberman, this question is to you. Many experts are forecasting continuing chaotic oil prices on the world market. Wholesale natural gas prices here in our country are leaping. Then there are coal and electricity. Have previous Republican and Democratic Congress and administrations, including this one, done their job to protect the American people? SEN. LIEBERMAN: Not enough. But this administration, and Vice President Gore and I have had both a long-term strategy to develop energy independence, and a short-term strategy. In fact, if this administration had been given the amount of funding that it had requested from the Republican Congress, we'd be further along in the implementation of that long-term strategy, which is aimed at developing alternative, cleaner sources of Energy; aimed at giving tax credits to individuals and businesses to conserve and use Energy more efficiently; aimed at a partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles with the American automobile industry, which is making great progress to produce a vehicle that can get 80 miles per gallon. We also have a short-term strategy to deal with exactly the kind of ups and downs of Energy prices, and I know it was controversial, but Al Gore and I believed that it was important in the short term to reach into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, take some of that Oil that we have, put it in the market, show the big Oil companies and the OPEC Oil-producing countries that we've got some resources with which we can fight back. We're not just going to lay back and let them roll over our economy. And we did it also because gasoline prices were rising and home heating Oil inventories were real low. And our -- both of our tickets agree on LIHEAP, the Low Income Housing Assistance Program, but our opponents really offer no assistance to middle class families who are hit by rising gas prices and a shortage of home heating Oil The fact is that since the reserve was opened, the price of Oil on world markets has dropped $6 a barrel. Now, that's -- that's a good result, and I'm proud of it. MR. SHAW: Mr. Secretary? MR. CHENEY: Bernie, I -- this is an area where, again, I think Joe and I have fairly significant disagreements. My assessment is that there is no comprehensive Energy policy today; that, as a nation, we are in trouble because the administration has not addressed these issues. We have the prospects of brownouts in California. We have a potential heating -- home heating Oil crisis in the Northeast. We've had gasoline price rises various other places. For years now, the administration's talked about reducing our dependence on foreign sources of Oil, but they haven't done it. If fact, we've going exactly in the opposite direction. We've got the lowest rate of domestic production of Oil now in 46 years. You have to go back to 1954 to find a time when we produced as little Oil as we do today. Our imports are an all-time record high. In the month of June, we imported almost 12 million barrels a day. That means we're more subject to the wide fluctuations and swings in prices. We have other problems. We don't have refinery capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in this country for over 10 years. And the refineries are now operating at 96 or 97 percent of capacity, which means even with more crude available, they're probably not going to be able to do very much by way of producing additional home heating Oil for this winter. We have a long-term -- serious long-term problem with our growing dependence of foreign sources of Energy That will always be the case, but we ought to be able to shift the trend and begin to move it in the right direction. We need to do a lot more about generating the capacity for power here at home. We need to get on with the business, and we think we can do it very safely in an environmentally sound manner. We don't think that we ought to buy into this false choice that somehow we cannot develop Energy resources without being caution with the environment. We can. We've got the technology to do it. And we ought to do it. We do support the low income Energy assistance program. We think that's very important so that our senior citizens for example don't suffer this winter. But we need to get on to the business of having a plan to develop our domestic Energy resources in producing more supplies, and this administration hasn't produced it. MR. SHAW: Mr. Secretary -- SEN. LIEBERMAN: Bernie, could I add a word to that? MR. SHAW: Senator, I'm going to continue. SEN. LIEBERMAN: I yield. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Drilling and the environment | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MR. SHAW: Thank you, sir. Your congressional record: You sponsored a bill that said no to Oil and gas exploration in Wyoming wilderness areas, your home state. However, you cosponsored a bill that said yes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Your explanation. MR. CHENEY: Bernie, it just shows I've got a balanced approach to how we deal with environmental issues. (Laughter.) MR. SHAW: Not a case of "not in my backyard"? MR. CHENEY: No. I think we have to make choices. And the Wyoming Wilderness bill, frankly, was one of my proudest achievements as a member of Congress. I worked on that with my good friend Al Simpson, for example, for about four years. We set aside a part of Wyoming, nearly a million acres of wilderness that ought to be separate and not be developed. We think that was important. There are a lot of areas around the country where Governor Bush and I, for example, support restraints. We support the moratorium on drilling off the coast of California. But there are places where we think we ought to go forward and develop those resources. The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is one of them. It's on the north slope. It's right next to Prudhoe Bay. The infrastructure is there to be able to deliver that product to market. We think we can do it, given today's technology, in a way that will not damage the Environment., will not permanently mar the countryside at all. And so what we're looking for, I think, with respect to environmental policy and Energy policy is balance. We do have to make choices. We recognize we have to make choices. But the way you phrased the question, frankly, I welcome because I think it shows that in fact we are trying to pursue a balanced approach. And the suggestion that somehow all we care about is Energy development isn't true. But we do have to get on with developing those resources or we're going to find ourselves ever more dependent on foreign sources. We're going to find that our -- the fact that we don't have an energy policy out there is one of the major storm clouds on the horizon for our economy. I think if you're to look for something that could develop, some problem that could arise that might in fact jeopardize our continuing prosperity, it's the possibility that we might find ourselves without adequate supplies of Energy in the future, and there would be no quicker way to shut down our economy than that. MR. SHAW: Senator? SEN. LIEBERMAN: Bernie, we agree on the problem, but we couldn't disagree more on the response to the problem. The problem is accurately stated; no matter how strong we are economically, if we remain dependent on a source of Energy that is outside our control, we're not going to be as strong as we should be, and others around the world can effectively yank our chain. And we cannot allow that to continue to happen. I'm afraid that our opponents' response to this is one-sided, and it is essentially to develop the resources within the United States, almost regardless of where. I'm against drilling in the Arctic Refuge. This is one of the most beautiful, pristine places that the good Lord has created on Earth, and it happens, fortunately, to be within the United States of America. It's just not worth it to do that for what seems to be the possibility of six months worth of Oil, seven to 12 years from now. That's not much of a response to the immediate problem that gasoline consumers and home-heating Oil customers are facing this winter. There are more resources within the United States that we can develop. In fact -- and this isn't mentioned much and appreciated much -- but in the last eight years, drilling for gas on federal lands has gone up 60 percent, and it's been done in an environmentally protective way. In fact, the administration has encouraged the drilling for deep gas and Oil that's going on in the Western Gulf today. But the answer here is new technology that will create millions of new jobs. Let me just say this; if we can get three miles more per gallon from our cars, we'll get a million -- we'll save a million barrels of Oil a day, which is exactly what the refuge, at its best, in Alaska would produce. Now, the choice to me is clear; we've got to develop fuel cells, alternative Energy We've got to encourage people to conserve and to be efficient. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Social Security guarantees | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
MR. SHAW: This question is for you, Senator. We all know Social Security is the backbone of the retirement system in our nation. Can either of you pledge tonight categorically that no one will lose benefits under your plans? SEN. LIEBERMAN: Yes, indeed. I can pledge to the American people categorically that no one will lose benefits under our plan for Social Security as far forward as 2054. And let me come back and say, Bernie, that Al Gore and I view Social Security as probably the best thing the government did in the second half of the -- the last century. It has created a floor under which seniors cannot fall, and so many of them depend on it for their basic living, for their livelihood. It is critically important to protect it. That's why Al and I have committed to -- to putting that Social Security surplus in a lockbox, not touching it, and that's what allows us to keep Social Security solvent to 2054. Our opponents have an idea for privatizing Social Security that will jeopardize Social Security payments to -- to recipients. And I looked at this idea, and if I may use an oil industry analogy, which is to say that sometimes, as you know, Dick, better than I, you got to drill deep to discover whether there's Oil in a well. For a while, I was drilling into this idea of privatization of Social Security, and the deeper I got, the drier the well became. And it seemed to me, at the end, that what it was going to do is dry up Social Security. It requires taking as much as a trillion dollars out of the Social Security fund. The independent analysts have said that would put the fund out of money in -- in 2023, or if it's not out of money, benefits will have to be cut by over 50 percent. That's just not worth doing. Al Gore and I are going to guarantee Social Security and add to it the retirement savings plan that I mentioned earlier, which will help middle-class families looking forward have not only Social Security, but a -- but a superb extra retirement account as well. Social Security Plus from us; with all respect, Social Security "minus" from the Bush-Cheney ticket. MR. CHENEY: You won't be surprised, Bernie, if I disagree with Joe's description of our program. The fact of the matter is the Social Security system is in trouble. It's been a fantastic program, it's been there for 65 years, it's provided benefits for senior citizens over that period of time -- for my parents -- and it means a great deal to millions of Americans, and Governor Bush and I want to make absolutely certain that the first thing we do is guarantee the continuation of those payments, those benefits, and keep those promises that were made. But if you look down the road and you're, say, 30 years old today -- and I have two daughters about that age -- they seriously question whether or not there will be any system left for them, and that's because the demographics that are (at) work out there and it's almost an iron law. We know how many people there are, we know when they're going to reach retirement age, we know when that baby boom generation's coming along, we know how long people are likely to live after that. And it's going to drive the system into bankruptcy unless we reform it and deal with it. The reform we would like to offer is to allow our young people to begin to take a portion of the payroll tax, 2 percent of it, and invest it in a personal retirement account. That does several things. First of all, it gives them a stake in the Social Security system. That becomes their property. They own it. They can pass it on to their kids if they want. They don't have that kind of equity in Social Security today. Secondly, we can generate a higher return off that investment than you get in the existing system. Today, you get about a 2 percent return on what you pay into Social Security. We can generate, we think, at least 6 percent. All the evidence shows at least three times what we're able to get now. And long-term, by generating a bigger return, we'll put additional funds into the system that will help us survive that crunch that's otherwise going to hit in the future. Bottom line is there's a choice here. With respect, frankly, to Al Gore and Joe's plan, they don't reform Social Security at all. They add another huge obligation on top of it that future generations will have to pay. They don't touch the basic system itself. They don't reform it. They don't save it. We have a plan to do that and a plan to give our young people a choice and more control over their own lives. |
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
