Energy Policy Act of 2003-Conference Report

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, and I have fervent hopes that we will not invoke cloture.

Mr. President, this bill is bad for what is in it and bad for what is not in it. I don't know which is worse. It is bad for what is in it because there are so many provisions that don't make much sense that are done to help one State or another but don't really add up to a national policy.

It is particularly bad for what is in it because the MTBE provision is one of the worst provisions that has come down the legislative pike in decades. To tell homeowners who have lost their homes that they cannot take a shower, cannot drink the water and, through no fault of their own, they are out of luck, that their life savings which they invested in their little homes is gone-even though the MTBE producers knew the stuff was bad and didn't inform anybody-is an outrage.

Some say the Government authorized MTBE. Then let the Government help the homeowners if you don't want to have the oil companies, the MTBE producers, be sued. But don't leave tens of thousands today, and hundreds of thousands within a few years, of homeowners high and dry. I am not a big fan of lawsuits all the time, as my colleagues know. But if there were ever a case where lawsuits were justified, it is in this case. To cut them off, and to cut them off retroactively, is dastardly.

In addition, there is no energy policy in this bill. We have had the triple storm: we have had 9/11; we have had Enron, we have had the blackout. And we do virtually nothing to deal with the aftermath of all three of those.

There is no conservation in the bill. There is no real dealing with the Enron excesses. When it comes to the blackout, we take a baby step that utilities okayed but not what we have to do. Great nations have failed when faced with a crisis and they refused to grapple with it. That is what is happening here.

This bill, whether it passes or fails, will be deeply regretted 5 years from now for what it does and what it does not do.

Mr. President, when pork is used to grease a policy along, well, that is not good. But when pork is used as a substitute for policy, that can be disastrous. I argue that in this case that is what has happened. I had wished that we had a real energy policy in this bill.

My colleagues are all people of good faith. Both Senators from New Mexico, the Senator from Iowa, and the Senator from Montana have all tried their best. Unfortunately, at a time when America demands a thoughtful and far-reaching energy policy, this proposal, instead, delivers little bags of goodies to some individuals, not others, and says that is a substitute for policy.

I hope the bill is defeated.