[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 28121-28123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               AN INFINITE MIRAGE AND A BOUNDLESS FACADE

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, through its shortsighted actions, this 
administration perpetuates an infinite mirage and a boundless facade. 
This administration hopes to fool the American people into swallowing 
its wrongheaded policies with no questions asked. These policies have a 
superficial appearance of reality, but they are beyond comprehension--
beyond grasp. They hover like a mirage on the horizon. We are lulled 
into believing that if we just stay the course, we will eventually 
reach some sweet, glorious watering hole. However, the truth is that 
there is nothing tangible, nothing solid, nothing with form or 
substance on the horizon.
  Regardless of whether it is Iraq or an energy bill, one need only 
connect the dots to see that the same questionable tactics are readily 
apparent. When the President announced to the world, ``Either you are 
with us or against us,'' he alienated many potential allies abroad. The 
administration uses the same posturing in terms of an energy bill. It 
is either the administration's way or no way, as it opposes any 
alternative approaches that do not fit into its little black box.
  There was a horrible rush to pass the Iraqi resolution in this body 
last year. This administration is using the same tactics to dictate the 
terms of a very bad energy bill this year. This facade is all too 
obvious as the White House's only goal is to pass a bill seemingly 
regardless of its substance or lack thereof.
  The administration's national energy policy plan will do about as 
much to improve the Nation's energy security as the administration's 
invasion of Iraq has done to stem the tide of global terrorism. In the 
past, the administration attempted to make a case that linked September 
11 and Saddam Hussein. These links have failed to materialize, but the 
administration is still trying to make that link. Not one Iraqi was 
among the hijackers of airplanes on September 11--not one. So it must 
be a matter of great chagrin to the administration that it has been 
unable to bring forth the evidence of that linkage.
  Predictably, the administration is now attempting to make the same 
connections between its national energy policy and a comprehensive 
energy strategy. This link will also be proven groundless in the not 
too distant future.
  For many years, the Middle East has been a hotbed for a number of 
reasons, especially because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the 
continuing U.S. military presence in the region, but an underlying 
reason for our continued presence in the region is for the protection 
of our oil lifeline. We likely would not have such close ties to the 
Middle East if it were not so important to our economic base. Because 
of this tethering, we are being pressured into passing an energy bill. 
Unfortunately, even if this Congress passes the administration's 
prescribed energy bill, that will do little, if anything, to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Instead of striving to disentangle ourselves from this foreign oil 
dependency, the Bush administration seems intent on sinking our 
military and energy fortunes deeper and deeper into the hot sands of 
the Middle East.
  I have spoken on this floor before regarding my concern for this 
Nation's energy future. I have also addressed the Bush administration's 
lipservice and corporate coddling, which is the sum total virtually of 
its energy policy. As a recent report from the General Accounting 
Office concludes, the Vice President's national energy policy 
development group did not solicit a broad range of views. That group 
never sought to project future energy demand or engage future sources 
of supply. There was no plan with specific goals and objectives 
designed to ensure energy diversity. But the Bush administration 
insists it has an energy policy.
  A lot of energy went into producing it, and it has expended much 
energy to get its bill passed. In fact, just before the lights went out 
in Manhattan, Cleveland, and Detroit, Vice President Cheney was quietly 
working with the Republican leadership to void key electricity 
provisions that this body was about to pass.
  I say to my colleagues, all is not lost. Help is on the way. While 
this Nation's citizens were stranded and sweltering in darkened subway 
tunnels in New York and without drinking water in Cleveland and 
Detroit, more rewards were being handed out. Yes, while the citizens of 
those cities suffered, the administration was very busy. While our 
electricity system was in a shambles, the Bush administration was 
eagerly handing out hundreds of millions of dollars in sole-source 
contracts to Halliburton--have my colleagues heard of that name 
before?--and Bechtel to rebuild Iraq's water and electricity 
infrastructure. Oh, the irony.
  Even more telling, in its statement of administration policy, the 
White House told energy conferees to trim the estimated $50 billion-
plus cost of the energy bill because the pricetag was excessive.
  Let the American people hear this: We can cut taxes for the rich, we 
can spend $21 billion just this year to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, 
but the energy pricetag in the next decade at home is too expensive. 
The truth is, regardless of its costs, the Bush administration will 
never fully fund the programs in an energy bill as the White House is 
too distracted by other so-called priorities.
  The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the energy industry 
gave more than $2.65 million to the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000. The 
oil and gas industry gave 68 percent of that total. Not surprisingly, 
media accounts are ripe--ripe, I say--with stories of the 
administration's contributors who have been tripping over themselves to 
curry favors for their particular energy interests.
  What about other groups? Were the interests of the State and tribal 
interests, labor unions, consumer groups, and environmental 
organizations at the table?

[[Page 28122]]

  A lack of consensus on energy legislation has rightfully raised 
concerns that the final product will be but a patchwork of compromises 
that do not truly solve our urgent problems.
  The Republican majority and the White House have put together what 
amounts to a ``pig in a poke'' energy bill that includes a number of 
items that remain enormously controversial and that have little to do 
with building the bipartisan consensus essential for the development of 
a national energy strategy. The legislation passed by this Senate last 
year and this year has been largely ignored.
  Now the majority is preparing to ram this hodgepodge through the 
conference, and we are being forced to swallow it, hook, line, and 
sinker. This is no way to legislate and it certainly is no way to 
develop such an important national policy.
  We cannot continue to conduct the Nation's business in this way. The 
stakes are too high. Partisanship alone is threatening enough to our 
ability to develop comprehensive solutions to our energy problems, but 
it is not just partisanship that is reason for worry. It is the utter 
contempt with which this Bush administration apparently views the role 
of the legislative branch.
  As the General Accounting Office has learned, this administration 
simply will not tolerate legislative inquiry. This administration will 
not tolerate fact-finding. Requests for information are often simply 
denied. There is no room for debate, just dictums. We are not expected 
to stand on this floor and offer amendments. We are urged to sit 
quietly, we are expected to sit quietly, and wield the rubberstamp. The 
people of West Virginia did not send me here to be a rubberstamp. I am 
certainly not a rubberstamp.
  Energy policy, in my estimation, drives so much of our economy and 
defines so much of our national prosperity and security that backroom 
bargaining can threaten our Nation's future.
  The administration used numerous promises and assumptions to sell the 
Iraqi war to the American people. We were assured that the postwar 
construction would largely be paid for with Iraq oil revenues and the 
cooperation of other nations--nations that got the back of our hand. 
But the President now tells us we cannot count on that money in the 
short term and the American taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
  We are hearing the same type of rhetoric now. We heard claims that 
the administration's energy bill would fix all of our energy problems. 
I hope the American people are smarter than that because this energy 
bill is no panacea, and it could very well turn out to be a Pandora's 
box.
  We need a comprehensive approach to our energy policy. What do I mean 
by comprehensive? A comprehensive approach fully integrates four 
fundamental principles: energy security to encourage fuel diversity; 
fiscal soundness to increase economic growth and the efficiency of 
production; consumer protections to guard against fraud, market 
manipulation, and abuse; and environmental sensitivity to minimize the 
impacts from wastes and emissions.
  These are essential elements for any comprehensive energy policy. 
These elements must be fully integrated through a policy that is 
designed to maximize fuel diversity and efficiency of production while 
minimizing consumer abuse and environmental degradation. These elements 
could provide a complementary path forward, but this Energy bill is a 
significant detour.
  With these guiding principles in mind, we must then begin to make the 
hard choices. We must develop a truly strategic plan. Planning requires 
that we decide how much, to what extent, and when actions must be 
taken. It requires the development of criteria so the progress can be 
measured.
  For the past three decades, the United States has struggled to find 
and secure its energy future. Administrations since Richard Nixon have 
been trying to craft a sensible energy policy, with some small 
successes, but mostly with little significant progress to show. All too 
often, America's energy agenda has shifted--lurching first in one 
direction, then in another. The net effect has been that the Nation has 
grown more and more dependent on foreign oil, making America's energy 
security increasingly vulnerable to manipulation and terrorist attack.
  This Nation has not had a serious, thoughtful energy strategy or a 
comprehensive set of energy policies for a long while. Too often, the 
Government has, instead, reacted to shortages, dislocations, and 
various energy crises. For example, the Government has tried to control 
oil and natural gas prices, which only served to exacerbate supply 
shortages. For a period of time, one administration tried to prohibit 
the use of natural gas and forced the use of coal for power generation. 
Two decades later, another administration discouraged the use of coal 
and Federal priorities shifted to the increased use of natural gas. 
Today, the Nation finds itself caught in what Federal Reserve Chairman 
Alan Greenspan calls ``the gas trap.''
  The energy bill soon to be before this Congress is primarily another 
reactionary effort. While there may be some strong trees planted, it is 
by no means a healthy forest. From past energy efforts, only a few 
actions, such as creating the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Clean 
Coal Technology Program, have proven to be truly farsighted. I fear 
that most of this energy bill will continue a business-as-usual 
approach.
  Furthermore, we must, once and for all, realize that our energy and 
climate change policies are two sides of the same coin. Yet we are 
doing little, if anything, to address seriously these critical links. 
This energy bill includes nothing substantial to address either global 
climate change or advanced clean energy technology exports. If these 
and other key provisions are not included, why should I support such a 
flawed, misguided energy conference bill?
  Furthermore, the administration has been seeking my support for its 
so-called FutureGen project, claiming this purported $1 billion, 10-
year proposal would build one large powerplant as an experiment to 
address climate change. My support for this project is largely 
contingent on identifying the long-term resources for FutureGen and 
knowing that it will not erode other critical energy programs. So I 
have to say that, if the administration is expecting my support for 
FutureGen, then, in coming years I expect that the administration will 
support my climate change and international technology transfer 
provisions as well. If the administration is still around.
  Global warming is an Achilles' heel for this White House--one among 
other Achilles' heels. The President has shown no desire to address 
this problem in an energy bill or anywhere else.
  In the end, the President would dearly love a showy Rose Garden 
ceremony in which to sign an energy bill and thus have a 2004 campaign 
press release to tout its so-called success. But, given this 
administration's track record, an energy bill would simply be another 
empty soapbox for the President to stand on to announce a bankrupt 
deal.
  I say, where have we seen that before? While the Congress has passed 
bills and supported the Bush administration's rhetoric, the necessary 
resources to carry all this out never materialize.
  The American people deserve much better than this. As the blackout of 
August 14 vividly demonstrated, this Nation's energy system--which is 
the lifeline of our economy and national security--is on life support. 
As we struggle to define and implement a national energy policy needed 
to address these issues, we again find ourselves on a collision course.
  We need a new framework based on a consistent and cohesive set of 
policies. But we must recognize that we must get to that critical 
juncture. This new framework must be designed to strengthen the law, 
not gut it. Most importantly, as we approach this crossroads, we must 
seek to fully integrate our energy and environmental policy goals and 
objectives in a complementary way.
  We were told we had to rush into Iraq to contain Saddam's WMD 
programs. Now we are being told this energy bill

[[Page 28123]]

will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, counteract increasing fuel 
prices, and do so many other things.
  Americans should not be fooled. They will not. There are few, if any, 
benchmarks or yardsticks from which we can truly chart our progress. 
Sadly, such milestones are anathema to this administration. At the same 
time, we have squandered a huge opportunity. The bipartisan cooperation 
in the development of this energy bill was purely superficial. Soon 
this Senate could be asked to vote on this legislation. There is 
pressure to cajole Members to swallow hard and pass it. Despite some 
solid provisions, why should I be a party to this boondoggle?
  A cherry-picked energy plan based on soliciting big industry campaign 
contributions is a bankrupt policy. It takes this Nation nowhere, and 
it puts our Nation's future at risk. It is time that the dots were 
connected. The same pattern by this White House continues to repeat 
itself. That pattern is statements of policy that build on infinite 
mirages and boundless facades.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________