Appropriations question?  Visit the Committee website.

E-mail
Senator Byrd

Leadership.      Character.      Commitment.

Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd

July 30, 2003

"Responding to the Nation's Energy Challenges"

On pleasant summer days, such as these, I doubt that the average person worries too much about the intricacies of energy policy.  However, energy is the life's blood of our economy.  Obviously, a comprehensive energy policy is a critical underpinning for a viable, strong nation. 

And, there are real and growing concerns about the nation's energy security -- about our teetering economy and about our growing dependence on foreign oil.  Coupled with these is an increasing need to protect the environment and address global climate change.  But instead of looking for balanced and comprehensive solutions to our critical energy problems, this Administration drags its feet and deals with our energy challenges by meeting behind closed doors with select corporate contributors.  

As is often the case, this White House offers shortsighted, silver bullet solutions.  But, in fact, there are just no silver bullet solutions to a sound and comprehensive energy policy for the future.  There is no Lone Ranger approach to energy.  We have to consider the worldwide energy supply and demand.  We must be ready to invest in a range of policies, technologies, resources, and institutional structures that can prepare us for the future.

During the 2000 Election cycle, the Bush campaign claimed that the creation of a national energy strategy was one of its most important priorities.  But what they meant by that may not be what many people thought they meant.  Even as candidate Bush traveled the presidential campaign trail, the issue of energy often shared the stage with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, in part because both candidates were formerly business executives with noted ties to the energy industry.  My own home state of West Virginia, where energy issues are very important, played a critical role in pushing the Bush-Cheney team over the top in the electoral college and handing the current Administration the White House.   

But, after his election, the President seemed more interested in seeking the advice of his corporate friends than developing a balanced, comprehensive, far-reaching energy policy.  It may be illustrative here to review the background of some Bush Administration officials.  Vice President Cheney served as the CEO of Halliburton.  Secretary Norton has lobbied for the oil, gas, and auto industries.  The President's Chief of Staff has served as the President and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association.  The U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, has served on Enron's Advisory Council.  Even National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice,  was honored by Chevron with a supertanker named after her.  With such close connections to big corporate donors, one has to wonder about who influences the energy agenda of this Administration. 

Upon taking office, the Vice President led a task force that hammered out the new Administration's energy strategy for the nation.  After months of work, the National Energy Policy Development Group issued its report in May 2001.  It was praised in some camps but criticized by others.  The criticism arose because executives from Enron and other big corporate contributors played a major role in the recommendations of that task force.  To many, the task force recommendations for a national energy policy appeared to be little more than an industry wish list.

When the General Accounting Office (GAO) and outside groups requested basic information about the Vice President's task force, the White House claimed Executive privilege.  Throughout the court battle which ensued, the Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that the separation of powers and executive privilege prevented them from releasing pertinent documents.  As a result, the credibility of the White House energy strategy development is certainly strained, especially with regard to the oil industry.        

I have been particularly concerned about our continued reliance on foreign oil and our lack of commitment to developing domestic fuel diversity.  Tackling that growing problem requires a serious and multi-faceted commitment, involving cooperation and coordination among many players.  But what the President seems to be proposing can be pretty much boiled down to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and exploiting the oil reserves under the hot sands near the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, in the Fertile Crescent -- modern day Iraq.   

U.S. domestic oil production peaked in the early 1970's, and, since that time, our oil demands have far outstripped our supplies.  But, instead of figuring out how to disentangle ourselves from foreign oil dependence, the Bush Administration seems to be intent on sinking our energy fortunes deeper and deeper into the sands of the Middle East.  What is this Administration's total energy agenda?  Is oil the only card in the energy deck which they will play?  

It certainly appears so.  And one has to wonder just how that card is being played.  As the world witnessed in the war in Iraq, the Administration was much more interested in protecting, defending, and developing Iraq's oil resources than it was in protecting Iraq's cultural or social resources.  Early on in the war, coalition forces were ordered to make it a priority to protect the oil fields.  Upon their entry into Baghdad, U.S. troops were ordered to surround and protect Iraq's oil ministry.  Despite clear warnings, coalition forces left Iraq's priceless museums and other government institutions defenseless.  On top of that, U.S. forces failed to protect nuclear test facilities.  This is especially puzzling in light of the Administration's often stated concerns about dirty bombs and the pilfering of nuclear material by terrorists.  So where are our priorities?  What is the U.S. really up to in Iraq?   

If the U.S. were really intent on developing a smart, commonsense oil policy, we would be taking additional measures to better balance our supplies from other nations; we would be carefully using our strategic reserves to hedge against future foreign manipulation; we would be promoting industrial energy efficiency; and we would be nurturing all forms of alternative sources for our energy and transportation needs, including coal, renewable, and biomass-based sources.

I have proposed my own commonsense proposal to help mitigate the growing global dependence on oil supplies from volatile regions.  The U.S. could encourage the transfer of our own clean energy technologies to other nations, especially developing countries who will increasingly be buying into the same finite oil markets that we are purchasing from.  Such efforts are critical in order to satisfy our energy security needs as well as to address related economic, job creation, trade, and environmental objectives.  The demand for oil from other countries will be increasingly fierce, and we have only a narrow window of opportunity ahead.  Last year, the Administration, at my urging, released a plan for just such an initiative intended to help open international markets and export U.S. clean energy technologies.  However, little, if anything, has been done to implement it.  Where have we seen this strategy before?  The answer is, we have seen it virtually everywhere with this Administration - - from homeland security to No Child Left Behind.    

Furthermore, the Administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget confirms some of my worst fears.  When it comes to domestic issues, the plan of Administration officials these days is about outsourcing, downsizing, reorganizing, reducing, cutting, slashing, slicing, dicing, and carving up the federal government.  It is a tailor-made infomercial for the benefit of all-too-receptive corporate donors.   

The Administration's energy budget is a sham, and its energy program requests are no different.  The Department of Energy (DOE) cut $20 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. The DOE's oil and gas research program was cut by more than fifty percent.  In order to squeeze enough dollars out of the budget for the President's new hydrogen initiative, other critical energy programs were severely cut.  Yet the Administration's hydrogen program is years away and cannot serve as a substitute for conservation, energy diversification, or other key energy programs.  Moreover, a proliferation of "new" initiatives have been announced by this Administration that are purported to solve our energy needs, especially for fossil fuels.  We have the hydrogen initiative, a carbon sequestration program, FutureGen, a national climate change technology initiative, and more.  My question is: Can anyone explain how these "new" initiatives will work together?  Where is the money to provide for all of this without compromising other important efforts?  The fact remains that there is no major increase in real funding or commitment for energy programs, just a proliferation of empty words from this Administration.  I do not believe we can treat our energy illnesses with the Administration's current budget prescription.       

In the 107th Congress, both the House and Senate actually passed comprehensive energy policy bills.  After lengthy debate in conference, important progress was made.  A number of compromises were struck, but in the end, the conferees could not reach a final agreement.  This should come as no surprise. 

In fact, this Administration made no real effort to help get a comprehensive, national energy strategy passed.  President Bush suggested that energy was a cornerstone of his Administration's agenda, but what did he do during the energy conference in the 107th Congress?  Nothing!  Oh, his rhetoric may have sounded good on the campaign trail.  He tried to talk a good game, but when it counted, the Administration took a decidedly hands off approach.

This new Senate Energy bill (S. 14), the House Energy bill (H.R. 6), and the White House's interest overall are intended to cater to the Administration's friends in industry.  That is it.  That is all.  In its present form, these Energy bills are no victory for our country.  They are a victory for special interests and a text-book example of our inability to set a long-term energy policy course.  Now, we are on the brink of another important opportunity squandered.  While there are some solid trees planted in the bill, this legislation will not produce the diverse energy orchard we must have to meet our needs down the road.  The President and the Republican controlled Congress are simply not prepared to make the tough choices that the nation needs for a viable, long-term energy policy.  How long will we wait? 

The President would love a one-day Rose Garden ceremony and a 2004 campaign press release.  But, given this Administration's track record, an energy bill would simply be another empty soapbox for this President to stand on, as he has already demonstrated with the education, farm legislation, Afghanistan, and the Homeland Security soapboxes.  The Congress has passed bills and supported the Administration's rhetoric, but then the necessary resources to carry them out never materialize.  This is the same fate that awaits an energy bill this session.

It takes leadership and very hard work to move forward in a responsible, balanced, and intelligent way on energy policy.  Yet, this Administration makes do with a cheap knock off.  It looks like the real thing, but it's a fraud and a fake.  It is much like cotton candy.  At first glance, it may look good, but there is no nutrition.  In reality, it is just puffed air.

In the last five years, I have worked hard to help develop a balanced and bipartisan package of provisions to advance our national energy policy goals -- provisions that could go a long way toward addressing both the near- and long-term energy needs of our nation, while also providing numerous benefits both at home and abroad.  These provisions garnered bipartisan support in the Senate Energy bill in the 107th Congress, including clean coal, climate change, international technology transfer, and other important provisions.  Together, these initiatives represent a bold new enterprise -- stepping stones along a 21^st century energy pathway. 

Yet, the Administration seems intent on just blocking many of these bipartisan ideas.  For example, in a May 8, 2003, statement on the Senate Energy bill, the White House stated, in part, "The Administration is not convinced of the need for additional legislation that would attempt to limit or direct U.S. global climate change, and will oppose any climate change amendments that are inconsistent with the President's climate change strategy. . . we urge the Senate to allow . . . the President's strategy to go forward unimpeded."  I continue to ask, just what is the President's strategy -- cotton candy?

Last session I introduced legislation with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska that would allow the United States to deal more easily with the complex issues involved in climate change.  The amendment to be offered by Senator Bingaman is based on last year's Senate-passed provisions.  It would create a comprehensive strategy based on credible science and economics to guide American efforts to address climate change issues in our own backyard and around the world.  This amendment also would establish a major research effort to invent the advanced technologies that we will need to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.  We must develop a common sense package of technology, science, policy and other market-based measures to address this growing global problem.  The question is what are we waiting for?

Specifically, the Bingaman amendment includes provisions that would commit more than $4 billion during the next decade to vastly expand U.S. research into technology that could help to address the problem of global climate change.  The amendment provides for the creation of a more focused administrative structure within the federal government, including an office in the White House to coordinate and implement a national climate change strategy.  We cannot continue to just ignore this problem.

This amendment does not mandate a reduction of emissions by American companies.  Instead, this package places the nation on a common sense glidepath that is both achievable and sustainable.  It provides the framework to address the long-term goal of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations by working with other nations, while leaving the actual technology and policy decisions to energy experts and the marketplace.

China, Brazil, and India, among other states, will soon surpass the industrialized world in emissions of greenhouse gases.  It is important that we work in coordination with these nations to reduce their emissions at an early stage.  American know-how, technology, and ideas can help to lead to the implementation of a range of marketable clean energy technologies, not just in the United States, but also around the world.

It is time for real action.  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 future at risk.     

We cannot continue cutting energy programs and budgets if we ever hope to meet our long-term needs.  We cannot continue forestalling the development of a long-term energy strategy with a phantom plan.  The nation is at a turning point.  Our energy policy needs must stop being dominated by a crisis management policy.  We must work to enact appropriate energy legislation so that we avoid the consequences of our long failure to respond.  We cannot wait for the next energy crisis or the next spike in natural gas prices -- or the next California electricity debacle.  We cannot just go out and seize another oil rich country in order to solve our energy problems.  We must enact bipartisan energy legislation that will deliver a thoughtful and reasoned energy package.

###