|
 eorge
W. Bush ran for president on two major "restoration" themes:
Dignity to the White House, and energy exploration and production
to the continent. He promised to reverse an aggressive eight-year
anti-energy policy. Last year, the House of Representatives passed
a bill resembling the president's proposed framework, with strong
support from labor and 36 Democrats.
The administration
requested the Senate merely pass this bipartisan product. As the
war on terror progressed, public sentiment grew for increased domestic
production. Things seemed headed the administration's way.
Then came Enron.
The public does support paying Americans, as opposed to Arab sheiks,
to produce energy. But Bush's political opponents have created suspicion
that Enron unduly influenced the administration's energy recommendations.
True, Enron has yet to morph from a business scandal to a political
one (despite endless sorties by issue-starved Democrats). Still,
that story seems to have weakened politicians' spines beyond merely
campaign-finance "reform." Tough rhetoric notwithstanding,
there is evidence that Bush's passion for energy reform has gone
wobbly.
Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle has scheduled (his) energy legislation for floor
debate and vote to follow campaign finance. Word is that a Cabinet
secretary communicated to Senate Republicans the White House request
to "let Daschle's bill go." That is, put up a token fight
but do not obstruct final passage. This was not the Republicans'
plan. That means drop opposition to major increases in required
automobile fuel economy (already established as killing thousands,
by requiring less-safe cars), and don't go to the mat for opening
any designated areas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)
for energy exploration. It must be true. No one can make up something
this inane. The message: It is more important to the White House
to "get a bill," any bill, out of the Senate than to stick
to principles articulated in the presidential campaign, and in the
president's subsequent (now controversial) energy task-force report.
Daschle created
his bill after usurping the Energy Committee's jurisdiction, for
their apparent willingness to pass a sensible pro-energy bill resembling
the House version. Daschle's monstrosity is laughably larded with
windmill and solar-panel pork, and more heavy-handed "climate
change" programs. It does nothing to reverse the strangling
of domestic-fuel production.
This is not
a surprise, as it was purportedly drafted by his "senior energy
advisor," cum "senior climate fellow" at the Natural
Resources Defense Council, John Podesta. Special interests drafting
legislation? Pass the smelling salts.
Daschle's "alternative"
— to a bipartisan bill — does cleverly offer promise of
more natural-gas pipeline from the north, to deflect from its affirmation
of Clinton-Gore's prescription for dieting our way out of energy
starvation. Eschewing public confrontation over this anti-growth
trickery abandons hopes of a House-Senate conference negotiation
addressing mere differences of degree.
Instead, it
would move this energy-policy hostage taking to a closed venue.
No longer would Daschle & Company's obstruction be visible.
The actual debate, obscured from public scrutiny, would be easily
characterized as "environment" vs. "industry".
Tom, Peter, and Dan will stridently regale the opposition's stoic
defense of nature with no airing of the actual competing cases.
Why does this prospect appeal to the White House?
Is it a defeatist
presumption that allies cannot expose the dishonest claims involving
critters and "pristine" tundra? Worse, could this be a
recreation of the appalling education-bill model, in which after
minor rhetorical skirmishes the sole surviving principle was to
"get a bill"? Is the administration plan, alternatively,
the less craven but more naive "conference confidence"?
Already, White House staff are heard to say (to amazement and horror)
regarding "multi-pollutant" legislation amending the Clean
Air Act, "we'll fix it in conference". Since when do cornered
Republicans prevail on emotional issues in an election year? This
same naiveté led to the recent "climate change"
capitulation in vain hope of green hugs.
Be it "education
model" or naïve confidence, the White House surely is
not immune to the following motivation: Acceding to a Democrat bill
in the Senate, and allowing the battle to occur away from the cameras,
deprives the opposition of their non-"green" trump card:
"Enron wrote your bill!" In truth, Daschle's bill is so
deadly to the coal industry, Enron might as well have written that
obscenity.
Democrats count
on Enron-ing any pro-energy legislation - and its proponents - to
ensure their anti-affordable energy policies live on. It appears
the White House, in its desire to relegate shrieks of Enron influence
to the back burner, is willing to roll over for Tom Daschle. That
capitulation only ensures a significantly weakened final version
of could otherwise be critical legislative reforms.
|
