I voted against H.R. 6, the energy bill approved in the House by a vote of 246 to 180 on November 18, 2003 because it is a special interest bill that gives $23.6 billion dollars in tax breaks to energy producers.  It will only add to this country’s already massive debt load and will do little to reduce the nation’s dependency on foreign oil.  Even worse, in these times of staggering increases to our national debt, there were absolutely no funding offsets identified to pay for the mostly unnecessary tax breaks.

While there were some positive things in H.R. 6, the bill was so unbalanced with paybacks to oil and gas special interests, I simply could not agree to add that debt burden to the heavy load already carried by American taxpayers.

The Senate has been unable to muster enough votes for the bill to pass it, and until the Senate acts, there will be no final bill.  It is impossible to predict at this juncture whether the well-founded opposition to the bill in the Senate will prevail, or if the administration will be able to twist enough arms to see final approval on the bill after January 2004.

The President himself only asked for between $8 and 9 billion in tax cuts when we started this process.  By the time the final bill came to the House for approval, the tax breaks had soared to $23.6 billion, with $11.9 billion for oil and gas companies.  There are no offsets for these enormous subsidies.

The final terms of the bill were negotiated almost completely in secret.  Although all Democratic members were barred from the conference committee discussions, industry representatives had input, continuing the closed door process that created Vice President Cheney’s energy roadmap in 2001.

I am glad that there was a loud enough outcry to force Republican leaders to back off from their determination to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  We were also able to forestall inclusion of an inventory of oil and gas leasing potential on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which many saw merely as the first step toward drilling on OCS areas now protected by drilling moratoria.  I voted not to include the OCS inventory in the initial House bill, and again voted against it on October 15th, after conferees had added it back despite the House’s unanimous earlier vote.  An OCS inventory was not in the final bill. 

But I am disappointed with the number of provisions in this bill that weaken clean air and clean water protections and give energy producers a pass on complying with environmental laws.

One of the things that most people will be asking is whether this bill will prevent future blackouts like the one we had in August of this year.  While there is a start at trying to improve the reliability of the electricity grid in this bill, there is no accountability and no effective enforcement of electrical standards to prevent future blackouts.

H.R. 6 postpones until 2007 the Federal Energy Regulator Commission (FERC)’s ability to require participation in regional transmission organizations.  In the Midwest, this leaves control of the electricity delivery grid seriously fragmented, which was a big cause of the blackout. Real improvement in reliability has been postponed yet again.

H.R. 6 also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act without providing for adequate protection for electricity and natural gas consumers from predatory pricing and market manipulation, as occurred in the Enron debacle and elsewhere.  Although H.R. 6 does give FERC some authority to look at predatory pricing and practices, FERC has shown in the past that it does not have the ability to monitor or prevent market abuses of consumers by the Enrons of the world.

The bill also puts the cost of paying for groundwater contaminated by MTBE additives to gasoline on the taxpayer by limiting product defect liability for MTBE and paying MTBE producers $2 billion dollars to shift to production of different gasoline additives.

I have often said we cannot drill our way out of our energy dependency.  We must look to alternative energy sources for our everyday needs.  H.R. 6 does not do enough to reduce energy demand through conservation and energy efficiency and tax credits for renewable energy.  There is no way that the present crisis can be solved simply by calling for more coal mines, oil refineries and pipelines. 

We must have an intelligent, balanced energy policy.  I don’t expect the debate to be short or simple, but I intend to do everything in my power to see that this Congress acts responsibly to protect the way of life and economic well being of all our Michigan citizens, not just the bank accounts of the energy industry.