[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 29025-29026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS IN THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the conference report on H.R. 6, the 
comprehensive energy legislation, was released over the weekend. As the 
ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have 
come to the floor today to share my deep concern that this bill will 
endanger our environment and unfairly benefit special interests.
  The final conference report contains provisions that significantly 
change environmental law and undermine long-standing environmental 
protections. It is my sincere hope that the conference will remove many 
of these provisions during their meeting today.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee, on which I serve, has 
jurisdiction over environmental matters, and we were not consulted in 
the development of any of these provisions.
  This bill drastically rewrites existing clean air law. It postpones 
ozone attainment standards across the country. This is a matter never 
considered in either House or Senate bill that has been inserted into 
the conference report. By inserting this language, the conference will 
expose the public to dangerous air pollution emissions for far more 
time than under existing law. Several Federal courts have already 
struck down regulatory proposals similar to the provisions in the 
conference report as violations of the Clean Air Act.
  The gasoline additive MTBE, which is known to contaminate 
groundwater, would have been phased out in 4 years in the Senate bill. 
This conference report extends the phaseout for a decade and includes 
provisions that would allow the President to decide to continue the 
MTBE use.
  This bill provides legal immunity to large petrochemical companies 
from ``defective product'' liability arising from the contamination of 
groundwater supplies by the gasoline additive MTBE.
  It also terminates a lawsuit filed by the State of New Hampshire by 
reaching back to provide immunity as of September 5, 2003. This 
language allows a contaminating product to be used, possibly 
indefinitely, and provides communities with no fiscal remedies to clean 
it up.
  As a further subsidy to the industry, the bill exempts all 
construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from coverage 
under the runoff requirements of the Clean Water Act.
  This means that contaminants, such as toxic chemicals, grease, and 
other pollutants from oil and gas drilling, will end up in our 
waterways.
  Conferees have also removed hydraulic fracturing, an underground oil 
and gas recovery technique, from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act. This is a process in which water, sand, and toxic chemicals are 
injected under high pressure into oil- and gas-bearing rocks, 
potentially polluting drinking water supplies.
  This bill suspends these existing drinking water protections, even 
though courts have found that hydraulic fracturing should be regulated 
to protect the public health.
  Also, the conferees have included language to speed up energy 
exploration and development at the expense of environmental review and 
public participation on both Federal and non-Federal lands. The public 
will have less time to review and consider the impact of these 
projects.
  When these reviews occur, oil, gas and geothermal energy companies 
can be reimbursed through credits against

[[Page 29026]]

future royalties payable to the taxpayer for the costs of undertaking 
environmental assessments. These provisions subsidize energy 
development on our public lands.
  The conferees have also included provisions that mandate specific 
timeframes and deadlines for agency decisions on Federal oil and gas 
leases. This would establish oil and gas development as the dominant 
use of our Federal public lands.
  Our other Federal lands are at risk of becoming electric transmission 
corridors with this bill as well. The Department of Energy can open new 
areas for transmission line construction, harming the wildlife, water 
quality, recreational and other values we have sought to protect for 
years.
  My colleagues should know that this is not an exhaustive list of the 
environmental provisions of concern in this bill.
  In almost every title, there are significant changes to long standing 
environmental law and policy. In addition, important issues which 
received majority support in the Senate, such as a Renewable Portfolio 
Standard for electricity, requirements to reduce our dependency on 
foreign oil, and adoption of sensible climate change policy, have been 
dropped.
  While I support the establishment of a comprehensive energy policy 
for the United States, we should not use the final energy bill as a 
means to roll back important environmental protections.
  This bill will not promote energy self-sufficiency, will not promote 
it, and will cause environmental damage. It is my sincere hope that 
these unwise provisions will be removed, and I urge my colleagues to 
consider seriously the environmental effects of this legislation in 
making their final decisions regarding whether or not to support this 
measure when it come before the Senate.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________