Energy Policy Act of 2003-Conference Report-Continued

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003-CONFERENCE REPORT-CONTINUED

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to speak for a few minutes about the Energy bill conference report that is before this body, and specifically address some of the criticisms that have been made against a clean fuel additive that was mandated by Congress under the Clean Air Act, and which was specifically certified for use by the Environmental Protection Agency.

But, first, let me just speak more generally about the need for a national energy policy in this country. We are a country that likes to consume a lot of energy-whether it is gasoline, natural gas, coal-because it improves our quality of life and because it is key to growth in our economy and our prosperity, which, in turn, creates jobs so people can provide for their families.

At the same time, we are a country that loves and cherishes our environment, whether it is clean water or clean air. We know that by consuming energy we need to also take necessary steps to protect our air and our water and our environment at the same time. We do not want to be forced to choose one or the other. We want, and I believe we can have, both. We can have the energy we need in order to maintain our quality of life and our prosperity and to fuel our economy, and we can also have that energy supply produced and consumed in a way that protects the environment against unreasonable damage.

The reason I support this Energy bill is not because I believe it is perfect. I do not believe there is such a bill, unless the person talking happens to be the author of that bill. That is probably the only bill any of us would agree was perfect, the one that we were able to write by ourselves. But, of course, that is not the way it happens. That is not the way the Founding Fathers conceived of legislation passing.

So what we have is a bill that has some strengths and some weaknesses. But, on the whole, I support this bill because I believe, for the first time in at least 10 years, it means America has the hope for a national energy policy that not only serves our economic interests but serves our national security interests as well.

About 60 percent of the fuel we consume in this country is imported. Over the years, as we have consumed more and more energy, we have also become more and more dependent on imports from other parts of the world. We know one of those locations in the world is the Middle East, which is the subject, of course, of daily news reports. We know how troubled it is. We know how volatile that area of the world is. It means our energy supply is in jeopardy. Thank goodness we have been able to secure a steady supply of fuel, but it is at risk-as much at risk as the next headline, the next news flash, where we learn that some terrorist activity or some disruption of our energy supply is caused by other governments and other people beyond our control.

So I think what we need to do, and what this Energy bill does, is encourage innovation and increase productivity here in America so we are less dependent on imported energy. I think that is a good thing.

What we have right now is a schizophrenic energy policy in this country, one that squanders our strength in terms of our natural resources. It discourages innovation, and it leaves consumers too vulnerable.

There are specifically some interests that relate to my State of Texas in this bill that I want to talk about, but this is a bill that is not just good for Texas, this is a bill that is good for the entire Nation. It moves us one step forward, and it is one that I believe is in the best interests of the American people.

There has been some criticism of the provisions of this bill as they relate to a chemical called MTBE. The technical term is methyl tertiary-butyl ether.

Now, people may wonder why we are talking about MTBEs, and why it is so important. Well, the truth is, this was mandated, the use of reformulated gasoline, in the Clean Air Act about 20 years ago because what Congress recognized was that unless we could find ways to burn gasoline in a cleaner, more environmentally friendly way, then we were going to have dirtier air.

So Congress mandated the use of reformulated gasoline. American enterprise, as it does so well, innovated, created this product, which has then been used over the last 20 years and has enabled literally millions of people with lung disease, asthma, and the elderly to breathe easier. In other words, this oxygenate, as it is called, this chemical compound, has improved the public health in this country over the last 20 years. We are a better and healthier Nation for it.

As a result of this Federal mandate that reformulated gasoline be used, and that something be innovated and created to allow gasoline to burn cleaner so we may breathe easier, people in my State and around the country began to produce MTBE. And you do not do that overnight. It takes a lot of infrastructure. It takes a lot of investment to produce this particular product.

Indeed, 70 percent of MTBE is produced in the State of Texas and, not coincidentally, it creates a lot of jobs in our State. It is used in parts of the United States which are among the most polluted because we universally recognize that the use of reformulated gasoline and this particular oxygenate is important to reducing pollution and improving the public health.

Well, the problem is-that this Energy bill seeks to identify-in some places we have seen that people who store MTBE in storage tanks have not kept those tanks in good repair and they have leaked this oxygenate into the surrounding environment.

But rather than address their ire and their concern-a concern which I share-at those who maintain leaking tanks, we have people focusing on this chemical compound-which has not been shown to be harmful to public health but which, indeed, has improved the quality of the air we breath over these last 20 years-people who want to opportunistically claim that this chemical is somehow dangerous, when, in fact, the fault lies with those who do not maintain the tank in which this chemical is stored.

We realize-and common sense would tell us-that whether it is gasoline or whatever the product is, if it is in a leaky tank, once it gets out of that tank into the surrounding environment, it can cause some harm. Common sense tells us that. But rather than focus on the leaky tanks and the people who have negligently allowed those tanks to leak, we have people who want to aim their crosshairs at the people who produce MTBE, which has improved public health and air quality.

What this bill simply does is provide a safe harbor provision for those who have produced this product, which has improved the public health, and says: We are not going to stab you in the back for doing what the Federal Government asked you to do in the first place.

In other words, the Federal Government said: Please invest your money, Mr. Businessman. Please create this infrastructure to produce this reformulated gas additive that allows our air to be cleaner.

We are not going to let that happen and then years later, when perhaps memories dim and when someone has another idea, to say: Yes, we have you. Now you are going to be liable for money damages because you have done what Congress and the EPA asked you to do. We don't care about the benefit to the public health by producing clean air because now all we are concerned about is getting the people who have, perhaps, the deep pockets.

What we are discussing, in terms of the safe harbor, is a provision that ensures fairness, that preserves the trust that is so important to guaranteeing that we in this country have the benefits of the innovation that the free enterprise system provides and that improves all of our lives.

I hope we are not going to say to those who place their trust in Uncle Sam, when Uncle Sam says, please, Mr. Businessman, innovate and create a product that is going to improve public health, we are not going to allow that to be turned into a liability. There are some who want it to turn into a liability. In fundamental fairness, as well as our collective interest in the innovation that comes in the free enterprise system, when people step up and produce a product from which we all benefit, we should not let that innovation and we should not let that commitment and that trust suffer as a result of this legislation.

I congratulate Chairman Domenici and the conference committee for standing strong in the interest of fairness. It is true that over the next 15 years, MTBE will be phased out. There will be other products that will step in to provide cleaner burning gasoline, those that are based on ethanol. But, frankly, unless the safe harbor provision stays in this bill, if I were someone who was going to produce an ethanol-based gasoline additive to produce a cleaner burning fuel, I would be very skeptical about investing the money, about developing a product that will clean our air, because I would worry that just as those who are targeting MTBE, we would be back here 10 or 15 years from now, saying: We caught you. And what are you guilty of? You are guilty of trusting Uncle Sam and Congress. Now we are going to let entrepreneurial lawyers and others make claims regarding the very product that you designed in order to meet the needs of the American people. They are going to sue you for it and try to take everything you have and more.

I don't think that would be fair. I don't think that would be right. Frankly, I wanted to come out here and talk a little bit about how we got to this place because I think anybody who understands the complete story would understand that while this bill phases out MTBE use over the next 15 years, it also, at the same time, preserves the trust that is so important to getting investment in innovative products that make the public health better.

Manufacturers will be extremely reluctant to invest in other additives without some confidence that the Federal Government will not allow those investments to become the basis of future liability.

In short, the bill Chairman Domenici and the conference committee have crafted ensures that clean alternative fuels will not be regarded as unreasonably dangerous simply because they comply with Federal mandates. It is important to say, though, that if someone is negligent, whether it is maintaining a leaky tank that contains MTBE or any other product, and it causes harm, they are not protected by the language in this bill in any way. There is no defense or immunity from a suit for negligent conduct.

I have heard some say that MTBE is a threat to public health. As I said, MTBE on the whole has benefited public health.
The truth is, it is one of the most widely studied chemicals in commerce, including the pharmaceutical industry. The overwhelming majority of scientific evaluations to date have not identified a single health-related risk from the intended use of MTBE in gasoline. Numerous government and world-renowned independent health organizations to date have found no compelling reason to classify MTBE as even a possible cause of harm to human beings. Because MTBE manufacturers have complied with the requirements of the federally mandated program, MTBE should receive the equivalent legal treatment as ethanol for the reasons I have mentioned: for reasons of fairness and sound energy and consumer policy, and to encourage the kind of investment that ultimately will improve and maintain the public health.

The facts that demonstrate the need for a comprehensive energy policy that this bill represents are overwhelming. Gas prices are at $1.50 and above in most areas of the country. Natural gas prices at the burner tip are more than $9 per 1,000 cubic feet. This summer, as we will recall, 20 percent of the Nation faced a total blackout which lasted more than 8 hours. If now is not the time to pass comprehensive energy legislation, I ask my colleagues: When is? If now is not the time to pass comprehensive energy legislation where America can again have a coherent and comprehensive energy policy that protects our economy and our national security, when will we pass such a bill and embrace such a policy? We should do so without any hesitation and without any further delay.

I yield the floor.