Senate Gives Up on Energy Bill for 2003

Yahoo (AP) ^ | 11/25/03 | H. JOSEF HEBERT

[The_Victor]

WASHINGTON - After nearly three months of negotiations and dealmaking, Congress is giving up on energy legislation for this year, falling two Senate votes short of sending a bill to President Bush (news - web sites).

Republican leaders vowed to return to the $31 billion measure early next year.

The Senate abandoned the legislation late Monday after it became clear a dispute over a gasoline additive, MTBE, was not going to be resolved and efforts to find two additional Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster by opponents would not bear fruit.

There was not enough time before the Senate's scheduled Thanksgiving recess to reach a compromise that would be accepted in both the chambers of Congress, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., concluded. Senators were expected to begin leaving town Tuesday and not return until January.

Frist remained committed to the energy bill, spokeswoman Amy Call said.

"We will continue to work over the recess period to bring all sides to an agreement," she said.

The bill passed the House easily last week, but an attempt Friday to shut off debate in the Senate and bring the measure up for a final vote fell two senators short of the 60 needed. Repeated attempts failed over the weekend to find two lawmakers willing to change votes, GOP sources said.

Failure to get a bill was a disappointment to the White House. Bush repeatedly had demanded that Congress finish work on energy legislation, saying a new energy agenda was needed "for the sake of our national security and economic security."

Republican supporters of the bill said it would produce 800,000 jobs and assure more diverse energy choices by boosting production of coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power and renewable energy.

But the legislation encountered fierce opposition in the Senate, not only from Democrats but also from a handful of Republicans who objected to its cost and hundreds of provisions characterized by critics as giveaways at taxpayer expense.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called it a "1,200-page monstrosity that is chock full of special interest giveaways" from subsidizing corn farmers by doubling the use of ethanol in gasoline to providing favorable financing to a shopping center that will contain a Hooters' restaurant.

But none of the issues caught the attention of opponents as much as the dispute over MTBE.

At the insistence of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Rep. Joe Barton, both of Texas where much of MTBE is made, the bill would protect manufacturers of the additive from product liability lawsuits stemming from contamination of drinking water supplies. Such contamination has been found in at least 28 states and potential cleanup costs have been put as high as $29 billion.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., characterized it as a "get out jail free card" for MTBE producers.

On Monday, the White House stepped up pressure on House Republican leaders to take the MTBE provisions out of the bill, but still met resistance from DeLay and Barton. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was willing to press the issue and force a settlement if necessary, but he wanted first to see a vote-count in the Senate showing the bill would pass.

A GOP official close to the negotiations said several Senate Democrats had expressed a willingness to change their votes and support the bill if the MTBE liability provision were taken out, but backed away from the idea after Republicans won a key vote Monday on a Medicare prescription drug bill.

"It was like a door slamming shut," said this official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. With Bush assured of a victory over Medicare, there was a belief that Democrats didn't want to hand the president another triumph on a marquee piece of legislation, the official said.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of a House-Senate negotiating panel on the bill, had struggled since early September to cobble together an agreement, repeatedly insisting that it not contain provisions that would expose the bill to a Senate filibuster.

He insisted that it not include a House-passed provision for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (news - web sites), a sure bet to kill the bill in the Senate. And he felt the requirement to double the use of ethanol, an economic boon to farmers, would sway enough senators to overcome those opposing the bill.

As opponents built momentum, Domenici accused Democrats of "leading a parade to kill the most important provision ever thought up for farmers."

Republican leaders vowed to pick up the bill in January. Discussions to finding ways to defuse the MTBE liability issue — possibly stripping it from the bill — will be at the top of the agenda, according to congressional and administration sources.

[The_Victor]

You have to read well into the article to find the real reason the bill failed.

[prairiebreeze]

Thank you for highlighting that part. Says it all.

Prairie

[Semper Paratus]

Wasn't the power grid infrastructure re-work, that everybody was screaming about last summer, in the bill?

[The_Victor]

Wasn't the power grid infrastructure re-work, that everybody was screaming about last summer, in the bill?

Yup, it's in there.

[Mike Darancette]

I hope in the RAT states the Winter is long and cold with heating oil expensive and scarce.

[Timocrat]

This result may be the best possible result for Bush. If we have a really cold winter the Natural Gas supply may be such that it has to be rationed with the North East suffering the most. If we have an electricity shortage same thing happens.

No one can blame Bush who has been pushing for an energy reform bill since he took office. In late February '04 when they are freezing their backsides in the North East they will be looking for scapegoats. Exibit A are the Senators from that area who voted against reform. ( Not that I favour all the pork in the bill especially the ethanol which is a direct subsidy for Archer Daniels).If Kerry from Mass voted against this bill he will be dead meat in the Democratic primary.

Do I detect the fine hand of Karl Rove at work here?

[Timocrat]

This result may be the best possible result for Bush. If we have a really cold winter the Natural Gas supply may be such that it has to be rationed with the North East suffering the most. If we have an electricity shortage same thing happens.

No one can blame Bush who has been pushing for an energy reform bill since he took office. In late February '04 when they are freezing their backsides in the North East they will be looking for scapegoats. Exibit A are the Senators from that area who voted against reform. ( Not that I favour all the pork in the bill especially the ethanol which is a direct subsidy for Archer Daniels).If Kerry from Mass voted against this bill he will be dead meat in the Democratic primary.

Do I detect the fine hand of Karl Rove at work here?

[gdc61]

well i guess we can't waste all our ammunition now. gotta save some for the reelection!!!!!

[jwalsh07]

McCAin is right on this one, bacon grease overflowing. Good riddens.

[Grampa Dave]

$inator Da$$hole and Archer Midland Daniels are the big losers here.

Da$$hole had this bill rigged to double the output of ethanol to replace the poison MTBE which he helped to mandate into our gasolines.

Ethanol is a very expensive and inefficient additive that enrichs AMD, the Da$$hole and the big corn growers in the midwest.

[Wright is right!]

It's probably a good thing this one doesn't go thru in its current form. It's the last piece of major legislation under consideration, and a lot of the stuff in it was put there in order to get votes for OTHER BILLS. With those bills now passed, they can come back to this one in January and start picking out the chaff that is no longer needed.

Most pipple don't understand the MTBE argument. In some locations, refiners are FORCED to include MTBE in their formulation. The exemption from suits is only reasonable, since it's the gubmint that makes the refiners put the MTBE in there.

Michael

[jimkress]

With those bills now passed, they can come back to this one in January and start picking out the chaff that is no longer needed.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ...

The 'chaff' is never eliminated, only enhanced. In January theye will add more unrelated spending to the bill, not less. Federal spending is a rachet. It never is reduced.

[SierraWasp]

I didn't anticipate this thread being posted, so I'll just copy here what I just said over there:

But the dang market is just laying there like one of those hot-tub gays!

I bet it's because the energy bill is dead, due to that stupid "Olly, Olly Oxen Free" clause on MTBE!!!

I'm not against the oil companies, but they have REALLY screwed themselves with MTBE. I have to say, they deserve anything they get behind that crap they used to pay big bucks to get rid of, then manipulated the EnvironMental Agencies into making huge profits with, instead. Sad!!!

Now we're all screwed with no plausible energy policy and a bankrupt Medicare outgrowth of "the great society" that we just made more HUGE!!! I sometimes wonder... Nixon was great on foreign policy, but disasterous on domestic policy. De Ja Vu all over again!!!

[kaktuskid]

It was the GOV't that forced MTBE on us!!

[OXENinFLA]

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I don't think we are rushing into the prescription drug bill, nor are we rushing into the Energy bill. We have been wrestling with those bills for an interminable period of time--years. They have been up and down and debated and discussed, and conferees have worked their hearts out on these bills.

We are spending, on prescription drugs, an additional $400 billion. I don't believe anyone is going to be hurt by this effort. AARP has reviewed this bill and they support it. They would like it to spend even more, but they are supportive of this bill as a historic effort.

There is no doubt, with regard to prescription drugs, that there is the potential to provide the poor in this country, many of whom this very day are choosing between food and drugs that they need for their health, with prescription drugs essentially for free, up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. A huge percentage of the seniors in this country are going to have access to necessary prescription drugs, virtually free, under this bill.

If there is any problem with it, I suggest that maybe we have done a bit too much, that we could have been somewhat more restrained and focused less universally on this bill. But conferees debated it and it is a bipartisan effort by Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate. Now we have a bill and we will have to see how it goes.

I hope to be able to support it because I told my people in Alabama that I wanted the people who could not afford drugs to have them paid for. This change does, fundamentally, make sense. At the present time, we pay for your surgery, we pay for your heart operations, but we will not pay for the drugs that we know will help prevent a heart operation. We will not pay for the drugs that could avert the need for a kidney transplant, but we will pay for the kidney transplant. It is an odd thing.

I will take a few moments to talk about the MTBE question. It is a matter that has become a big point in the debate on the Energy bill. Frankly, I think it is a bit overdone. Some senators have said that if a company makes a product, the company ought to pay for it if their product causes damage. But that is not true. That is not the law in America.

That is not classical American liability law, tort law. As a matter of fact, it is an indication that this Congress and this country is losing its discipline on what is a legitimate basis for a lawsuit.

You can say, well, they made MTBE and it got into the water system in this community; therefore, the maker of MTBE ought to pay for it. They say that is what the law ought to be and they ought to pay.

Would somebody say Folgers should be responsible if a Folgers brand of hot coffee burned somebody in a McDonald's restaurant, or that McDonald's should be liable? If somebody takes a can of Campbell's soup and smashes a guy on the head with it, is the maker of the can of soup liable? Certainly not.

Let me share a couple of things. After 9/11, we realized we were facing a situation in which airlines had suffered a dramatic loss of ridership. Somebody woke up and said: Wait a minute, they are going to sue the airlines for 9/11. Why? Well, maybe somebody was asleep at the switch when a terrorist got by, so we can sue them. They think the airlines have a lot of money and they can pay for everybody and everybody will make lots of money. We can attach liability to them.

Congress, in considering that, passed legislation that would compensate the victims in New Jersey and their families for $1 million or $2 million each. As a consequence of that, they would waive liability claims against the company. The airlines' planes were seized, commandeered by terrorists. In truth, in the history of America, under classical law, the airlines are victims just as much as the owner of the Trade Center towers is a victim. We are in a situation in which the lawsuits in America, having eroded classical constraints on them, too often are successful in suing whoever is standing around--whether they have any real liability or not.

I think about the gun liability question. There are over 60 Senators, including Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, who support legislation to protect gun manufacturers, under certain circumstances, from liability. Why? Because cities and other groups, for political reasons, are suing the gun manufacturers because someone used their gun and committed a crime with it.

Well, under the classical rule of law--and I used this defense in one case--a person is not responsible for an intervening criminal act. The gun manufacturers make a gun that does what it is supposed to do. You aim it and point it and a bullet hits something or somebody. That is what the gun is supposed to do. The Federal Government passes legislation about how and to whom you can sell a gun, under what circumstances. They have to sign a statement, and there is a waiting period. They have to certify that they are not a drug addict or they have not been convicted of a felony. Then they can buy the gun, under certain circumstances. States have even more rules, and they comply with that. But they want to go further. They want to sue the gun manufacturer because somebody took a legal product, sold according to Federal law, and used it for a crime. They want to sue the gun manufacturer because I guess they think the gun manufacturers have a deep pocket of money. That is not what we ought to be about.

The MTBE was essentially a Government requirement over a decade ago. It is an oxygenate. It was produced and it did what we required to be done in order to improve air quality in America. The EPA could have stopped it if they had wanted to, but they never stopped utilization of it. It was encouraged. It was passed by Senator Daschle, who introduced an amendment that required it to happen. Everybody knew MTBE would be the product utilized more than any other product as an oxygenate to meet the environmental regulations.

So you say, well, if they put it in the water system, they ought to be liable. Right, if they put it into the water system, they ought to be liable. But if they didn't put it in the water system, they ought not to be liable. It is getting into water, but not because it is burned in the engines and goes through the environment and settles into the water. The argument is that some water aquifers are being polluted with MTBE as a result of leaking from tanks and from pipelines and matters of that kind.

It is legitimate, fair, legal theory that if a manufacturer of MTBE allowed its pipeline to leak or allowed the storage tanks to leak and the chemical got into the water system, then you can sue him. That is what we ought to be doing.

As I understand the language in this bill, it does not prohibit that kind of lawsuit. If you allow it to escape negligently into the system, then you are liable. That is what classical American law is all about. That is what it has always been about. However, it has never been about the producer of a substance being liable for pollution if somebody else takes it and dumps it into the water system of America. How ridiculous can that be? The person who dumped it in the water system is the one who ought to be liable and ought to pay.

As I understand the language in the bill, that is all that it says. You have to be the one who was responsible for letting it get into the water system. Maybe it is a local gasoline distributor who has a bunch of old tanks that leak and that person allowed it to get into the water. Is a manufacturer somewhere that didn't have any contact

[Page: S15176] GPO's PDF
with this company liable for the leak? Certainly not. If we have any legal discipline left in this country, certainly not. But that is where we are heading.
I also know there have been a good many problems with leaking tanks in this country. There is a big trust fund--I believe there is $2 billion in that fund--in case the gas station or the small gasoline distributor has gone bankrupt, doesn't have insurance, or doesn't have any money. What happens then if some of these even more dangerous chemicals, certainly more dangerous chemicals than MTBE, leak? Who would pay? This fund will pay.

The point is, Shouldn't we make sure we are thinking clearly about this issue? What is wrong with having within this legislation language that affirms a classical understanding of liability? That is what it is all about.

Companies get nervous. You get a water system that has some MTBE in it, which is not a cancer-causing substance, it

is not a disease-causing substance, according to every report I have seen. If enough of the substance gets into the water, it will have a bad taste and unpleasant smell, and it is bad--we don't want it in our water system--but it has not proven to be any kind of significant health hazard, to my understanding----

[Grampa Dave]

Tom Sullivan yesterday afternoon really covered how the Da$$hole was behind the ethanol sweetheart deals in this bill.

Bury the bill now and redo it in 2005 when Da$$hole is really a midget with a shrinking group of rats in the $enate.

Re the MTBE. Arco and some other gasoline companies deserve your rath and rant. Other companies did not want to add MTBE to their gasoline and tried to warn people about MTBE.

MTBE is like the current mutual fund scandal. Those fund companies guilty of the problems should be hammered. Others should not be painted with the same paint brush.

[SierraWasp]

"The MTBE was essentially a Government requirement over a decade ago. It is an oxygenate. It was produced and it did what we required to be done in order to improve air quality in America. The EPA could have stopped it if they had wanted to, but they never stopped utilization of it. It was encouraged. It was passed by Senator Daschle, who introduced an amendment that required it to happen. Everybody knew MTBE would be the product utilized more than any other product as an oxygenate to meet the environmental regulations."

And Senator Daschle was heavily lobbied to pass what would turn an expensive liability that refineries had to pay huge dollars to legally dispose of, into a huge profit! We finally badgered Governor Pete Wilson to ban it in CA and as he left office, his wife was appointed to ARCO's board of directors. Gray Davis kept extending that ban to January, 2004.

Sure... Right!!! The government "forced" 'em to do exactly what they colluded with the EnvironMental Communutty to support, so the contribs to both Daschle's Damocrats and the EnvironMentalistas would continue, unabated!!!

[Stultis]

Good. Blame gas shorters, power grid failures, etc, on the 'Rats!

At the same time the energy bill had bloated to boon-doggle proportions. Next year the Pubbies should submit Cheney's original proposals from 2001 more-or-less word for word, vow to vote down any admendments (including their own), and dare the 'Rats to vote against it before the elections.

Damn. Can't do that because of the Senate RINOs. [grumble]

[SierraWasp]

"Arco and some other gasoline companies deserve your rath and rant."

I concur! See my reply immediately following your astute comment that I typed before I saw yours. This all came down before ARCO's new owner acquired ARCO, I'm pretty certain.

Isn't it amazing that "Da$$hole" was behind BOTH MTBE AND ethanol, while also freeing South Dakota from forest EnvironMental restrictions to protect them from fire!!! The man is criminal!!!

Democrats, including their DUmmies like Davis & Daschle deserve to be removed from corrupting the American political scenario and the environment!!!

[Grampa Dave]

$inator Da$$hole is truly an evil behind the scenes $inator.

What is standing in his way is the internet, conservative sites like Free Republic and conservative talk radio. For years he and his wife have been up to their necks in these sweetheart/closed door deals with AMD, the MTBE manufacturers, the Airlines and only they and God know what else. Now he and his wife are exposed when they try the schemes that worked for them in the past.

Of course he brings home so much pork, the voters in his state will continue to send him back to the $inate as they are addicted to the pork. They can't make an honest living without the pork from the Da$$hole.