[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 25351-25352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              OUR NATIONAL ENERGY SUPPLY--RUNNING ON EMPTY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 26, 2000

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, our Federal Government's approach to 
energy reminds me of the teenager that has a number of intense 
priorities--none of which involve filling the family car up with gas. 
As recent sharp increases in prices for gasoline, heating oil, natural 
gas, and electricity, and regional fuel shortages indicate, the United 
States is running on empty and no one wants to pull over and fill up 
the tank. In fact, running out of gas appears to be an affirmative 
policy of the regulatory and land-use agencies of this administration.
  During the past decade, the Federal Government has actively 
discouraged exploration, production, transportation and use of 
conventional energy sources. The sudden increase in energy costs and 
reliability problems are symptomatic of a fundamentally flawed federal 
energy policy with serious adverse economic consequences that are only 
beginning to bubble to the surface. Although the Congress protected the 
public from their ill-conceived Clinton/Gore Btu-tax early in their 
administration, Clinton and Gore appear to have achieved their anti-
people goals through restrictions on energy production and use through 
the back door. By using the regulatory powers of the Federal agencies, 
the Clinton/Gore administration has increased the price of energy to 
all Americans. How quickly some have forgotten the lessons of the 
recent past such as the Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970's.
  My district in Michigan has many small and large businesses that 
support the automobile-manufacturing sector. I am very aware of how 
energy costs affect not just the economy, but the very prosperity so 
many working Americans have been enjoying.
  Our prosperity, and particularly the driving force of our prosperity, 
the manufacturing sector, which generated almost 30 percent of growth 
of the gross domestic product and was pivotal in creating 22 million 
new jobs in the 1990's, is still dependent on adequate and reliable 
energy supplies at internationally competitive prices. And the current 
situation is not good. The loss of 133,000 net manufacturing jobs in a 
broad range of industries in August, and another 66,000 lost jobs in 
September, is primarily due to higher energy costs. Because firms 
cannot raise prices in this competitive environment, they must respond 
to higher energy costs by reducing costs elsewhere. Despite the high 
value that is placed on American workers, sometimes they become the 
victims of bad federal energy policy.
  To maintain affordable energy supplies, all sources of energy need to 
be on the table. Unfortunately, the Clinton/Gore administration has 
been encouraging only the politically correct arrows in our energy 
supply quiver: conservation, non-hydro renewables and, as 
``transition'' fuel, natural gas. This is an detrimental and dangerous 
energy strategy. Instead, in addition to continuing efforts to 
encourage energy efficient choices and develop alternative energy 
sources, increasing the supply of all conventional energy sources 
remains critical for sustained economic growth.
  Currently, the most glaring policy disconnect is between the 
projections of natural gas demand over the next decade compared with 
supply realities. Some of the most promising energy efficiency 
technologies--combined cycle gas turbines and this generation of fuel 
cells--require natural gas. Several organizations, including the 
Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the 
National Petroleum Council, predict there will be approximately a 30 
percent increase in the use of natural gas over the next 10 to 15 
years. Yet U.S. natural gas production has remained stagnant for the 
past 6 years. Canada

[[Page 25352]]

already has increased its exports to the U.S. by more than
  More importantly half of American households depend on natural gas 
for heating. The American Gas Association estimates that their bills 
this winter will increase at least 40 percent over last year, and that 
is if we have an average winter. In addition, our economic prosperity 
itself is also in jeopardy. The tens of millions of working Americans 
who depend on natural gas for space heating, process energy, and 
product feedstocks, are finding the spot prices for natural gas 
increasing 2 to 3 times over what it was in January of this year. For 
many energy intensive businesses, such a those that support America's 
automobile manufacturing sector, this is a very serious matter. And 
this pain, this crisis, is largely the result of the Clinton/Gore 
policies of the past eight years. The Clinton/Gore administration has 
systematically denied access to natural gas resources and discouraged 
adding natural gas infrastructure to bring natural gas to market.
  The irony is that everyone knows where there is plenty of natural 
gas, but federal policies do not allow it to be developed. The Outer 
Continental Shelf and the multiple-use public lands on the Eastern 
Slope of the Rocky Mountains contain trillions of cubic feet of natural 
gas reserves that cannot be produced due to moratoria or numerous 
Clinton/Gore policies and regulatory actions that impede or prevent 
their development and production.
  And natural gas is just one energy source that suffers from federal 
policies. Coal and oil resources are similarly being locked up by 
federal land use restrictions on multiple-use lands. Only one new base-
load coal plant and two expansion units have been built since the late 
1980's, and none since 1996. No new major oil refinery has been built 
in 25 years.
  We haven't started construction on a nuclear plant in a decade, and 
no major hydroelectric dam has been built in memory. Moreover, federal 
policies have actively discouraged continued operation of even existing 
energy facilities. For example, the relicensing schedule for 
hydroelectric dams is an inexcusable eight years.
  It seems that, for the current administration, atrophy and 
diminishment are the only energy policies they'll consider, as 
indicated by their support of the flawed Kyoto Protocol, which would 
use international pressure to coerce Americans into massive cuts in 
fossil fuel use. Unconstitutionally, this treaty has never ever been 
submitted to the U.S. Senate for consent, and the Clinton/Gore 
administration has indicated no intention of ever submitting the 
resolution to the Senate. To negotiate a treaty against the advice of 
the U.S. Senate and to have no intention of ever submitting the treaty 
to the Senate for consent is blatantly and flagrantly unconstitutional.
  Via the Kyoto Protocol, the Clinton/Gore administration would commit 
the United States to what amounts to a 31 percent reduction in fossil 
energy use over levels otherwise projected by 2010. I oppose the 
attempts by the federal agencies to implement the protocol without 
Senate ratification and without implementing legislation. I thank my 
colleagues who have continued to support reasonable limitations on the 
Federal agencies that have forgotten how fundamentally important an 
adequate supply of energy is to our economic and social well-being.
  I would like to introduce into the Record a resolution by the Board 
of Directors of the National Association of Manufacturers expressing 
their concern for current energy supply policies. This resolution, 
which the NAM Board adopted earlier this month, notes that in order to 
sustain economic growth, this country must have adequate supplies of 
energy at internationally competitive prices. I agree with their 
analysis that all energy options must be on the table for us to 
maintain and grow our economy, and that energy supply considerations 
must be part of the overall federal regulatory policy. I commend the 
attention of my colleagues to the NAM resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the NAM resolution be inserted in the Record at 
this point.

           Resolution of Concern Over Energy Supply Policies

       An adequate and secure energy supply at globally 
     competitive prices is necessary for the nation's economic 
     growth. The NAM--and its more than 14,000 member companies 
     and associations, including 10,000 small and mid-sized 
     manufacturers--supports the development of markets and 
     policies that provide adequate, reliable and competitively 
     priced energy resources with minimal government intervention. 
     The NAM understands the critical importance of an 
     economically viable mix of energy sources, consistent with 
     prudent environmental policies. The NAM is concerned that 
     current federal policies are at odds with the fundamental 
     need to maintain adequate future energy supplies for the 
     economy and the welfare of the American people.
       Overall, U.S. manufacturers continue to strive for improved 
     efficiency in the competitive world marketplace, including 
     increasing energy efficiency. The remarkable productivity 
     gains of this past decade however, have tended to raise 
     energy use. Simultaneously increasing productivity and energy 
     efficiency in the face of foreign competitive pressures has 
     required developing and installing innovative equipment and 
     processes in all aspects of the manufacturing sector.
       Despite manufacturers' ongoing investments to increase 
     energy efficiency, and federal and private efforts to develop 
     economically viable alternative sources, increasing the 
     supply of traditional energy sources remains critical in 
     order to sustain economic growth. For example, the Coastal 
     Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the 
     Outer Continental Shelf should be opened for environmentally 
     responsible oil and gas production. With respect to 
     electricity, federal legislation should be enacted that would 
     strengthen reliability and efficiency of supply, and 
     facilitate wholesale and retail competition as soon as 
     possible.
       Energy warning signs are not just flashing because of this 
     past summer's regional electricity disruptions. Also this 
     year, the United States has been experiencing tight supplies 
     of natural gas and transportation fuels, and the Department 
     of Energy has even announced plans to dip into the Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve out of concern for heating oil prices this 
     winter. The drastic step of withdrawing oil from the SPR is a 
     wake-up call that current federal policies are jeopardizing 
     economic growth and prosperity.
       The current Administration has created an unbalanced 
     national energy policy by focusing only on energy efficiency, 
     natural gas and non-traditional energy sources, while 
     limiting the development and use of other energy sources. 
     There are limits to how much energy-efficiency measures and 
     alternative energy sources--some of which remain of 
     speculative economic viability--can contribute to meeting the 
     energy requirements of our growing nation. Of particular 
     concern is the policy disconnect between projections of 
     increases in natural gas consumption to meet new energy 
     demands, contrasted with current federal policies that 
     discourage the production and delivery of new natural gas 
     supplies. If federal policies will not allow more natural gas 
     to be produced and delivered, then natural gas will not be 
     able to fulfill its potential to sustain economic growth.
       By undermining the development of domestic oil, gas, 
     nuclear, coal and hydroelectric power, this Administration 
     has created ``supply-side'' disincentives that add up to what 
     is essentially a policy of planned energy dependence by the 
     United States on foreign sources. Historically, the federal 
     government has caused enormous economic waste when it tries 
     to pick ``winners'' and ``losers'' in the energy marketplace. 
     It has also caused waste when its energy policies are not 
     coordinated with other policy objectives or considered in the 
     context of economic growth.
       Current federal policies that discourage energy supplies 
     and distort energy consumption jeopardize economic growth. To 
     meet the challenges of a growing population and increasing 
     prosperity, while ensuring national security and 
     environmental protection, America must fully utilize all of 
     its energy options. The next Administration and Congress must 
     make the availability of adequate supplies of reliable and 
     competitively priced energy a national priority.
       As adopted by the NAM Board of Directors--October 4, 2000.

       

                          ____________________