Capitol View V O L U M E 2 , N U M B E R 6 M A R C H 2 0 0 4 PERILS OF PAULINE: THE ADVENTURES OF THE ENERGY BILL On March 4, 2004 the Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, Pete Domenici (R-NM), stated that he hopes Congress can complete consideration of a comprehensive energy bill "before the year is out." While the Senate may again take up the energy bill sometime after they return from the Recess on March 22, this is the most recent and perhaps somewhat pessimistic timetable for completion of a piece of legislation that has been on a tortuous journey to enactment for several years. Along the way it has taken on various forms, sometimes growing and sometimes shrinking, as parts are added or subtracted to attract votes needed in various situations. The proposed Energy Policy Act is currently enduring another near death experience but its primary proponent, Chairman Domenici, continues his efforts to bring it to a final vote. In the 107 th Congress failed to enact a comprehensive energy bill when a Senate-House Conference was unable to agree on compromise legislation. At the start of the 108 th Congress, then-Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Billy Tauzin (R-LA), renewed his efforts at comprehensive energy reform when he introduced the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R.6). This massive bill addresses a wide range of issues such as oil and gas production, coal, energy efficiency, hydroelectric licensing, nuclear power, electricity, vehicle efficiency, as well as energy research and development. It was adopted by the House on April 30, 2003 by a vote of 247-175. However, like many controversial bills, its troubles began to multiply when it reached the Senate. On April 30, 2003 the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee approved its version of the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (S.14) by a vote of 13-10. The electricity title of the bill (Title XI) proved to be the most contentious with major disagreements concerning the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over state regulators and local electric utility companies. One measure of the difficulty facing the electricity title was that the version approved on April 30 was the fourth proposed electricity title circulated to Committee members by Chairman Domenici in repeated efforts to garner sufficient votes for approval. The full Senate began debate on S.14 on May 6 and continued discussing the bill on an intermittent basis for 18 days. This was more time than the Senate had spent on any other bill last year but little real progress was achieved. On July 23 Chairman Domenici introduced a new electricity title in another effort to increase support among members of the Senate and on July 28 consideration of the bill resumed. By July 31 the Senate had voted on only four amendments and the Senate was on the verge of leaving for its August Recess. Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) threatened to keep the Senate from its Recess until the electricity title was complete but time was obviously running out on the energy bill. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D- SD) stated there were far too many controversial issues to be resolved any time soon and, as an aside, suggested bringing up and passing the version of the energy bill enacted by the Senate in the 107 th Congress. This bill had V A L U E A D D E D , V A L U E S D R I V E N. SM
C A P I T O L V I E W M A R C H 2 0 0 4 2 garnered broad bipartisan support and later in the day the Republicans accepted the Daschle proposal and passed the energy bill by a vote of 88-11. While this was the same bill adopted by the Senate in 2002 when the Democrats controlled the Senate, it was obviously being used by Chairman Domenici as a vehicle to get the energy bill to a conference with the House on H.R.6. The Chairman indicated that the bill that would emerge from that conference would be more like the bill approved by the Senate Energy Committee than the one adopted by the full Senate. On Saturday, November 15, 2003 Chairman Domenici and Chairman Tauzin released the proposed Conference Report on the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Some Democrats complained that the Conference Report was drawn up by the Republican members of the Conference Committee and that Democrats had been largely excluded in the process. Nevertheless the House quickly approved the Conference Report on November 18, 2003 by a vote of 246-180. Once again the energy bill ran into trouble on the Senate floor when Majority Leader Frist (R-TN) brought up the Conference Report to H.R.6. Some Senators complained that the bill had become too expensive with various subsidies and grants designed to attract votes of specific members. There was also criticism of a provision inserted in the Conference Report by the House which gave product liability protection for manufacturers of the renewable fuel additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Several manufacturers of MTBE were defendants in ongoing civil suits and some of them were located in Texas, home of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) and the Chairman of the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, Joe Barton (R-TX). As in the House, some Senate Democrats complained about being excluded from the deliberations of the Conference Committee. On November 21, 2003 the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the filibuster of the Conference Report to H.R.6 by a vote of 57-40 and the Senate adjourned for the year without an energy bill. Shortly after the Second Session of the 108 th Congress convened, Chairman Domenici introduced another version of a comprehensive energy bill, S.2095. Chairman Domenici announced that despite his efforts over the Recess, he had not been able to secure the votes necessary to invoke cloture on the Conference Report to H.R.6 and he decided to draft a new energy bill that would remedy the objections voiced by some Senators. S.2095 removed the MTBE product liability protections found in H.R.6 and reduced the overall cost of the bill from $31 billion to about $14 billion. On February 23, 2004 Majority Leader Frist used a procedure found in Rule 14 of the Standing Rules of the Senate to bypass sending the bill to Committee and had it placed directly on the Senate Legislative Calendar. It is possible that the Senate may again turn to the energy bill shortly after March 22. However, its ultimate fate is far from certain. While S.2095 will probably garner sufficient votes to cloture any filibuster, there is currently no agreement to limit the number of amendments which may be offered on the Senate floor. Given the fact that there are only about 50 legislative days remaining in this Session of Congress, if the number of amendments cannot be limited, there may be pressure on the Leadership to pull the bill from the floor. In addition, since S.2095 is a new piece of legislation, if it passes the Senate it would have to be approved by the House. Majority Leader DeLay and Chairman Barton have indicated they would oppose any energy bill without liability protections for MTBE manufacturers. All of this activity and maneuvering demonstrates that legislation addressing comprehensive energy reform is among the most contentious issues for Congress to address. Significant regional differences in energy production and consumption, disagreements over conservation versus production, competing demands of producers and consumers of energy, and questions over the regulation of new technology create disagreements V A L U E A D D E D , V A L U E S D R I V E N. SM
Recommend
More recommend
