[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Page 8688]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 THE EFFORTS TO ATTACH THE ENERGY BILL TO S. 150, THE INTERNET TAX BILL

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to explain my votes on two 
amendments that were offered to S. 150, the Internet access tax bill 
that the Senate debated last week. I was pleased to support the 
amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, No. 
3050. I support the renewable fuels title of this amendment and the 
measures that increase the supply of ethanol. I also support language 
to consolidate the number of reformulated gasoline blends. I have 
worked closely with Congressman Paul Ryan in an effort to reduce the 
number of Federal reformulated gasoline blends and increase gasoline 
supplies. In recent years, fuel supply shocks such as pipeline problems 
and refinery fires have contributed significantly to gasoline price 
spikes in southern Wisconsin. Chicago and southeast Wisconsin use a 
specialized blend of reformulated gasoline to meet Federal Clean Air 
Act requirements that is not used elsewhere in the country. When 
supplies of this type of gasoline run low, Wisconsin is unable to draw 
on supplies of gasoline from other areas.
  I could not, however, support the amendment offered by the Senator 
from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, No. 2051. This so-called ``scaled down'' 
version of the energy bill consists of 900 pages and contains many of 
the worst provisions of the H.R. 6 conference report that failed to get 
cloture last fall. The entire Wisconsin congressional delegation voted 
against the bill last fall, and I cannot support the amendment either.
  In addition to its fiscal implications, I am deeply concerned that 
the amendment repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This 
critical act protects consumers against abuses in the utility industry. 
Repeal of PUHCA would leave ratepayers vulnerable and spur further 
consolidation in an industry that has already seen a number of mergers. 
Furthermore, the bill does not protect consumers from Enron-style 
electricity trading practices and market manipulation. The Senate 
recently went on record in support of an amendment by Senator Cantwell 
to bar such abusive practices and I am disappointed that the Domenici 
amendment fails to include similar protections.
  Also the amendment has serious environmental impacts. For example, 
the amendment undercuts the Clean Air Act by postponing ozone 
attainment standards across the country. This issue was never 
considered in the House or Senate bill, but it was inserted in the 
energy conference report. This rewrite of the Clean Air Act is not fair 
to cities like Milwaukee that have devoted significant resources to 
reducing ozone and cleaning up their air. And as asthma rates across 
the country increase, this provision could severely undercut efforts to 
safeguard the air quality of our citizens.
  In addition to undermining air quality protection, the amendment 
allows for siting of transmission lines in national parks, grants 
exemptions from the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act for oil 
and gas companies, and pays oil and gas companies for their costs of 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
  I am also concerned that the taxpayers would pay $2 billion in 
transition assistance for MTBE manufactures. MTBE is found in all 50 
States, and high levels are affecting drinking water systems all over 
the Midwest, including 5,567 wells in 29 communities in Wisconsin, even 
though the State only used MTBE gasoline for the first few weeks of the 
phase I program that began in January 1995.
  This amendment also fails to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The 
Senate energy bill contained a requirement that power companies provide 
at least 10 percent of their power from renewable energy sources like 
wind and solar power. The technical term is a renewable portfolio 
standard. The amendment doesn't contain any renewable portfolio. 
standard. There's no doubt that we can and should do better on 
renewable energy to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
  For these reasons, I supported the Daschle amendment that contained 
the energy bill's renewable fuels title, but I opposed the Domenici 
amendment. I appreciate the need to develop a new energy strategy for 
this country, and I hope that Congress will pass the portions of the 
energy bill legislation that have widespread support so that we can 
address the pressing energy needs of our country in a sensible way.

                          ____________________