News Conference on Senate Energy Bill

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: NEWS CONFERENCE WITH: SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY); SENATOR JOHN SUNUNU (R-NH); SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA); SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ); SENATOR BARBARA BOXER (D-CA); SENATOR DICK DURBIN (D-IL)

SUBJECT: SENATE ENERGY BILL

SEN. SCHUMER: I was just going to say Maria was incredible. I don't know if any of you saw her presentations with the charts or you should have seen her in the cloak room lobbying members with far more charm that I certainly could have.

SEN. CANTWELL: Thank you. Certainly I am sure a lot of people thought what do two senators from the Energy Committee from opposite sides of the country have in common, but certainly Senator Schumer and I felt it was important that we make a statement about this energy bill, and frankly about the administration's energy policy.

While the administration would like everybody to believe that they have an energy policy for the 21st century, this bill is much more about representing a fossil fuel industry that exists today, and a continuation of that policy. And the gravity and weight of this bill is what brought it down. The fact that it was not a concrete policy to move us forward, but instead a patchwork of subsidies, special giveaways, exemptions for Texas on the electricity title, and something quite offensive to me-actually sanctifying Enron contracts that have been known to be manipulative-in this bill was just more than I think members in a bipartisan fashion could tolerate.

I'm proud of what the Senate has done today, and I want to thank Senator Reid from Nevada for his help in counting votes on our side, because he certainly played a leadership role. And I'm proud that this institution is standing up on an issue that I don't think a lot of Americans understand. I don't think Americans understand what the federal government has to do with energy policy. I don't think they really understand that we have a responsibility on wholesale rates and on transmission rates, and that this administration wanted to continue to promulgate a policy that allowed special interests to stick their hands in the pockets of rate payers. While in a bipartisan fashion today we have taken a statement against that, and this is not the last battle.

There is much more to happen on this legislation. And while some may be pleased that if you take out the MTBE section that it might go; and others if you take out or encourage some further incentives it might go. But the bottom line is that this bill doesn't represent a step forward for this country. You cannot, as the vice president said in his own energy policy statement, promulgate an energy policy on the back of the environment. And if we are going to move forward on an energy policy, we have to do both: invest in new technology, create jobs, and protect our existing environment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Q What do you expect to go on in the next few days?

SEN. SCHUMER: Well, you know, since they need two votes, what we worry about is that they will go to people, offer them certain things. Now, they can't do a new energy bill, because the rules of the Senate wouldn't allow that to happen, really in effect till next year. But what they can do, and what our worry is, that they will go to people and say, We will put something for you in the omnibus bill if you switch your vote on cloture. So that's our great worry.

On the other hand, it doesn't happen that often. Usually when there's one vote and the legislation doesn't change, it's rare that people change. So I think we have a pretty good chance to keep this, but don't count on it as money in the bank.

Q (Off mike) -- the president will weigh in -- (inaudible) -- ?

SEN. SCHUMER: I was told --

SEN. CANTWELL: I think the president did weigh in. I think there were phone calls made in the last 24 hours to members --

SEN. BOXER: From London.

SEN. CANTWELL: -- offering a variety of things, and I think the administration probably weighed in quite significantly to try to convince people that this was their energy policy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Q On MTBE again, to what degree do you all think that that provision was instrumental in today --

SEN. SCHUMER: I'd just speak for myself and say it was clearly instrumental, you know, with 58 votes. You could say without it, maybe the bill would have passed. But I think it served to be the lightning rod of many-there were many other provisions in the bill that were wrong, and I think it would be too simple to say now, maybe if they never put it in the bill would pass. But that doesn't mean if you just take it out that the bill would pass tomorrow.

SEN. CANTWELL: I think you have 150,000 sites around the country in probably every state that is affected by MTBE, and there were lots of concerns by members. But I think if you look at the bipartisan effort that we got from the Northeast, I think that they had multiple concerns. And so I don't think it's the single issue.