[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21256-21259]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     PLANNING FOR OUR ENERGY FUTURE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, once again a critical region of the Middle 
East is engaged in violent clashes. Over the last week, the death toll 
in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank has risen to 67 lives lost. I know 
that Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Leader Yasser Arafat made heroic 
efforts to try to reach a peace agreement these last few months. They 
even met for part of the time in my own State of West Virginia. With 
U.S. support and encouragement, the Israelis and Palestinians stood at 
the brink of a resolution, and they were as close as they have ever 
been to resolving a very longstanding dispute in that ancient, 
volatile, and embattled part of our world. Though I hope these two 
peoples will return to the negotiating table, today that opportunity 
appears lost.
  This disheartening incident again illustrates that the Middle East 
peace is very fragile and could erupt like flash powder. While Saddam 
Hussein has been quelled for the time being, the world must always be 
on the watch. We do not know if the Israelis and Palestinians will 
reach a peace accord. Americans are affected in many ways. We have 
security and family interests in this region of the world, and the 
United States gets much of its energy resources from there as well. The 
U.S., our European allies, and many other industrial countries are 
tethered to the Middle Eastern oil chain. If we are ever going to break 
that stranglehold, then it is time that we take action here at home.
  Over the past 18 months, the national average price of gasoline has 
risen from under $1 per gallon to $1.52 per gallon this week. As winter 
approaches and crude oil inventories remain at record low levels, both 
gasoline and fuel prices are expected to increase further. Americans 
are growing increasingly concerned about the seemingly endless 
volatility in our energy markets.
  What we are seeing, Mr. President, in the fluctuation of energy 
prices is a textbook study of how supply and demand can affect energy 
prices. First, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries agreed 
last year to reduce crude oil production, thus increasing the cost of 
producing gasoline. Secondly, gasoline refineries, which had shut down 
some operations when crude oil prices fell to record lows in 1998, 
suddenly faced shortages of production capacity to produce gasoline and 
heating oil when demand spiked earlier this year.
  In response, the administration has successfully lobbied for an 
increase by OPEC in crude oil production over the past year. In March, 
OPEC's decision to increase crude oil production temporarily reduced 
the cost of gasoline, but prices increased again going into the summer 
driving season as demand for gasoline increased. Gasoline prices 
decreased in late summer, but, as winter approaches and the expected 
demand for crude oil, heating oil, and gasoline increases, prices could 
very likely climb again. These are the ups and downs of the energy 
roller coaster that has taken the American public for a ride.
  To make matters worse, this volatility in gasoline prices is 
occurring as the United States prepares itself for the upcoming 
Presidential election. This has added fuel to the fire as Members of 
Congress, the administration, and politicians everywhere position 
themselves politically to avoid blame for the spike in energy prices. 
Unfortunately, such positioning is usually accompanied by a myriad of 
snake-oil remedies and miracle cures that do little more than lull the 
American public into believing that the problem is being fixed when, in 
fact, the problem is being exacerbated.
  Two weeks ago, the administration announced such a proposal, against 
the better judgment of the U.S. Treasury Secretary and the Chairman of 
the

[[Page 21257]]

Federal Reserve, that would authorize the sale of 30 million barrels of 
crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the next month. 
This is the same petroleum reserve that was created in response to the 
1973 Arab oil embargo to store oil in case of a national emergency, 
such as a war in the Middle East. Like the Army, you hope never to use 
the reserve. But, if you need to, it should be big enough to do the 
job.
  Yet, the release of oil from this reserve is unlikely to have a 
significant effect on prices at the pump. The United States consumes 
approximately 19 million to 20 million barrels of crude oil per day. 
The administration's proposal would provide for an additional one 
million barrels per day. Such a small amount of oil is unlikely to have 
much of an effect on gasoline prices, especially in light of the 
additional 800,000 barrels per day of crude oil that will be produced 
by OPEC.
  But what is worse is that this sort of intervention in the domestic 
energy market, which may seem simple, could actually be self defeating. 
If refiners expect more oil to be released from the reserve, these 
shrewd businessmen may hold off on buying more crude oil to produce 
gasoline and heating oil until the price of crude oil decreases, which 
would make it more profitable to them, not to mention the oil companies 
that have posted strong profits this year. Similarly, OPEC could easily 
offset any benefits from the release of crude oil from the reserve by 
reducing its own production by an equal amount.
  So, I am not sure that Americans should breathe a collective sigh of 
relief at this announcement regarding releases from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. It might be good public relations but not a good 
faith effort to reduce prices. A similar ``fix all, miracle cure'' was 
offered this spring in response to high oil prices. Some Members of 
Congress proposed reducing the federal excise tax on gasoline in order 
to reduce prices at the pump. In their rush to score political points, 
the proposal was brought to the Senate floor for a vote twice in 
April--once as an amendment to the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution 
and again as a freestanding bill. Both times, a sensible majority in 
the Senate voted not to repeal the gasoline tax by substantial 
majorities. I am proud that so many of my colleagues refused to swallow 
this patent nostrum, realizing that first, the savings from the excise 
tax repeal would not filter down to the consumer, and, second, that a 
reduction in the excise tax would have a significantly negative effect 
on the highway trust fund. Presumably, the sponsors of this dangerous 
proposition were going to provide tax relief to these oil and gas 
companies and delay highway projects just to make a political point. It 
is time to get beyond this campaign hysteria and last-minute 
gimmickery. These current concerns are really just symptoms of a larger 
problem.
  Mr. President, I would also be remiss if I did not raise disturbing 
evidence that oil companies are sending our own oil overseas. On 
average, 50,000 to 90,000 barrels of oil per day have been exported to 
the Asian Pacific Region from Alaska's Northern Slope after an export 
ban was lifted in 1995. This output equaled about 27 million barrels in 
1999. Why are we exporting oil from Alaska to countries like South 
Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China when we face shortages at home? Are the 
same voices advocating for increased production in Alaska also 
supporting the export of oil overseas while simultaneously criticizing 
the recent release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? These voices 
are singing the siren song for increased oil company profits, not the 
hallelujah chorus of relief for the average American.
  So here we are today caught in a black hole that will do little to 
move us down the road toward developing a sustainable energy policy. 
Just last week, a motion was made to proceed to S. 2557. I believe that 
we should be deliberating proposals on energy security. I also believe 
that we should not forget that there are other measures out there that 
should be given equal attention. While this bill may have some valid 
energy policy provisions, so do many other proposals. I note for the 
record, that Senator Daschle began an effort over two years ago to 
construct an energy security package. This effort, which I have 
cosponsored, addresses a number of important energy resources and 
industries. If Senators wish to support greater energy independence and 
encourage cleaner, more efficient technologies, then I urge them to 
also look at S. 2904, the Energy Security Tax and Policy Act of 2000.
  We need to be talking about very complicated and critical energy 
matters, asking what role and responsibility we all must play. What is 
OPEC doing? What are the oil and gas companies doing? What is the 
administration doing? What is Congress doing? What are we doing 
individually?
  My call for a comprehensive national energy policy is longstanding. 
On May 14, 1984, I took to the Floor with a warning that America should 
not be so dependent on Persian Gulf oil. At that time, the Reagan 
Administration was trying to eliminate the Department of Energy and its 
many energy programs. I argued that this was a wrongheaded approach and 
that short-term budget concerns should not dominate longer-term 
national security interests. At that time, I said: ``Our energy 
security rests upon our military might, not upon our natural resources, 
nor our technological genius.''
  In another floor statement from August 6, 1987, I noted how the 
Reagan administration was continuing to undercut funding for the 
fossil, renewable, and synthetic fuels programs. That administration 
had slashed spending for energy conservation programs and vetoed 
legislation to provide for emergency preparedness and national 
appliance efficiency standards. Additionally, the Reagan administration 
was even balking at filling--not using--but filling the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. In reviewing that August 1987 speech, I warned:

       Why must the energy security of the United States be 
     protected first with guns and not with brains or our 
     homegrown natural resources? . . . The Reagan 
     Administration's destruction of the Nation's long-term energy 
     policies--policies that have been developed and promoted by 
     every Administration since President Nixon--is imperiling 
     America's energy security.

  What can Congress do to find some common ground? Energy security and 
energy independence are a critical national, in fact, a critical 
international issue. Congress should find beneficial proposals and move 
forward on passing legislation in the 107th Congress that will get the 
job done. We should be looking at a variety of opportunities.
  Let me offer one example from the recent past. Several weeks ago, 
while the Senate was debating the bill to grant China permanent normal 
trade relations, I offered an amendment to increase the use of 
American-made clean energy technologies in China. No Senator argued 
against this amendment on its merits. I believe that if a proposal like 
this were offered on another bill, then it could very likely have 
passed by an overwhelming margin and would be a win-win-win opportunity 
for business, labor, and the environment. I say to my colleagues, 
knowing that a multi-trillion dollar clean energy and environmental 
infrastructure market will be exploding in the coming decades, we 
should be taking every opportunity to promote market-based initiatives 
to deploy these American-made clean energy technologies at home and 
export these same technologies to developing countries as soon as 
possible.
  Still, I realize that an effective energy strategy will require much 
debate and a good bit of negotiation. This is not something that can be 
resolved by depending on any one approach, technology, or resource. 
There are many serious questions that must be examined when considering 
our energy choices. We must consider the pros and cons of each of our 
energy resources and ask the following questions. With regard to oil 
and natural gas, how can the U.S. decrease its dependence on foreign 
producers by increasing domestic production while also ensuring that 
environmental protection and conservation are promoted? Regarding 
nuclear energy, is it possible for the U.S. to continue utilizing our 
existing nuclear energy facilities while also finding a workable

[[Page 21258]]

solution to the problem of nuclear waste? Can the U.S. find ways to 
decrease the price for renewable technologies like wind, solar, 
geothermal, and biomass in a very competitive energy market? Is it 
possible to reconcile the conflicts regarding hydroelectric power and 
sustainable fisheries? How can the U.S. continue to use coal while 
ensuring that the air and water are made even cleaner? Finally, how can 
American businesses and individuals use all of these energy resources 
more wisely and find ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? No one 
industry, no one resource, no one technology, no one approach is going 
to provide that one silver bullet to fix our energy security problems!
  Our long-term energy security interest goes far beyond the current 
price hikes in gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, or electricity. I 
fear that, as a nation, we are falling asleep at the wheel. We need 
policies that buffer our economy and our people from decisions made by 
foreign suppliers. It is time to focus on increased research and 
development into advanced technologies, energy efficiency and 
conservation measures, and market-based incentives to rapidly move 
these advanced technologies and conservation measures from the lab to 
the field. I believe that a comprehensive national energy strategy can 
do all of this and incorporate a strong environmental strategy as well.
  Therefore, what would a comprehensive national energy strategy 
include? Let me suggest a framework that I believe would help Congress 
craft such an energy policy. We must look at developing all of our 
energy resource sectors--fossil, nuclear, and renewables. A 
comprehensive plan must include improved measures for all of the major 
energy consuming sectors--the transportation, manufacturing, 
residential, and commercial sectors. A national energy plan needs to 
address the development and the conservation of our resources. It does 
no good to be producing more of our energy at home if we are not making 
further progress to conserve energy as well, especially in a growing 
economy. We need to develop an effective pipeline for the development 
of more advanced energy technologies. This will demand that more money 
and effort must be devoted to research and development, demonstration, 
and, ultimately, deployment in the market place. This energy strategy 
must be sound economically and environmentally. We must examine actions 
that can be taken now as well as actions for the long-term. Finally, 
while taking these steps domestically, we should also be finding ways 
that we can increase the export of American-made clean energy 
technologies to other countries that need these technologies just as 
much as we do.
  As many of my colleagues know, I have been working for many years to 
provide funding for a range of clean energy technologies. I note that 
two of these 21st century clean energy technologies, the Clean Coal and 
fuel cell programs, are being centered at our nation's newest national 
laboratory, the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, WV 
and Pittsburgh, PA and I believe that Congress should continue to 
support critical efforts like these in the future.
  These are 21st century clean energy technologies--not because this is 
the 21st century, it is not, until next year. But we are talking about 
technologies that extend into the future.
  These technologies are essential for growing our economy while also 
ensuring that environmental improvements, energy security, public 
health, and air and water quality are met. I have been working for 15 
years on the Clean Coal Technology Program, and I believe that it is 
possible to bring together several complementary and mutually 
beneficial proposals. Let me outline a framework for coal and Clean 
Coal Technologies that I believe should be included in an energy 
security bill in the 107th Congress. This package must be bipartisan, 
and I look forward to working with my Democratic and Republican 
colleagues who have supported this effort like Senator Daschle, Senator 
McConnell, and others.
  Senator Lott's bill, S. 2557, has requested a report from the 
Department of Energy regarding coal and the development of an effective 
research, development, and demonstration program. I agree it is time to 
do a more comprehensive study of Clean Coal Technologies. Among other 
steps, the Department of Energy should work with the private sector on 
a study to find ways for achieving higher performance goals and should 
recommend a road map for the development of these new technologies. The 
Congress should also consider authorizing additional funding to carry 
out a more advanced research, development, and demonstration program to 
achieve these ends. I will certainly put my shoulder to the 
appropriations wheel in an effort to assist in this regard.
  A comprehensive energy package should also include a provision to 
promote the commercialization of Clean Coal Technologies, similar to 
that included in S. 2904. This provision, which I and other Senators 
support, would help to establish incentives to increase the deployment 
of these advanced Clean Coal Technologies now and in the future.
  Finally, it is time that the U.S. turn its attention to the current 
fleet of coal-fired power plants. These coal-fired powerplants generate 
approximately 56 percent of our Nation's electricity and are the work 
horses of our electric generating capacity.
  Up here is part of the work. Take a look at the lights in the 
ceiling. When the curtains of night fall, look at the lights at the top 
of the Capitol and across both sides of the Capitol, and pause to think 
that those lights are burning because coal is still being mined.
  It is time that we examine market-based incentives to make emission 
reductions and efficiency improvements for the existing fleet of coal-
fired electric power generation.
  I believe that Americans witnessed a healthy discussion about our 
Nation's energy security at Tuesday night's presidential debate between 
Vice President Gore and Governor Bush. Both candidates put forward 
their views on how the U.S. can effectively develop a comprehensive 
national energy policy. Each candidate made what I believe signify 
complementary goals regarding a comprehensive energy policy. 
Principally, Governor Bush expressed his belief that the U.S. should 
take additional steps to increase the availability of our domestic 
energy resources, and Vice President Gore asserted that the U.S. should 
also find ways to decrease our energy consumption. Additionally, and 
particularly, I welcome the comments by both Presidential candidates 
regarding clean coal technologies.
  I have to say that this present administration and some of the 
budgets that have come to the Hill have sought to defer funding on 
clean coal technology, and even this year sought to rescind some of the 
money. That is going in the wrong direction.
  The Vice President, in his September 14, 2000, letter to United Mine 
Workers President Cecil Roberts remarked, ``I strongly support 
accelerating the development and deployment of technologies that will 
allow us to use coal in cleaner and more efficient ways.'' Following 
his announced support for clean coal technologies at a campaign stop in 
Huntington, WV a day before, Governor Bush also voiced his support at 
the debate by saying, ``I want to develop the coal resources in America 
and have clean coal technologies.'' Responding to those comments by 
Governor Bush, Vice President Gore said, ``I strongly support new 
investments in clean coal technology.'' I am heartened by the comments 
of both candidates, and I hope that the next administration will be a 
strong advocate for the increased research and development, 
demonstration, and deployment of these clean coal technologies in the 
coming years. The next administration has an obligation to follow 
through on those commitments to help America's coal miners, develop our 
own resources and technologies, and to deploy these clean coal 
technologies in the market at home and abroad. If we want to have a 
national energy strategy, then we must sit down together and put all of 
our interests on the table.
  I heard a great deal of talk by both Presidential candidates in that 
debate

[[Page 21259]]

about what each is going to do. Each is going to do this and each is 
going to do that, and this is going to happen and that is going to 
happen. Very little mention was made in that debate about Congress.
  Congress has to be a partner in carrying out whatever plans the 
winning candidate may have in this respect and in other respects. So 
don't leave out Congress, my friends. Congress is very much a partner. 
I hope both candidates will recognize that in their future debates. 
They will think of Congress because it takes help from Congress, 
because Congress is made up of the elected representatives of the 
people. You have to have Congress on your side, whoever becomes 
President. We will sit down together and put all of our interests on 
the table.
  We should judge the success of our energy strategy by how it affects 
the average person. How will it benefit farmers, coal miners, home 
owners, and truck drivers? We need to help create more jobs and an even 
stronger economy and ensure that the U.S. does not quiver each time 
that OPEC tries to flex its muscles. We must not allow ourselves to be 
swayed by the winds of the current political movement. The American 
people are not fools. They realize that last-minute, short-term, quick-
fix solutions do little to address the underlying problem: the need for 
comprehensive national energy policy. It is my hope that Congress will 
begin to take a serious look at energy security legislation in the 
107th Congress. Mr. President, I stand ready to meet these challenges.

                          ____________________