WASHINGTON, April 22 (UPI) -- House Republicans have successfully pushed through an energy policy bill and the question now is whether the legislation will win Senate approval in its current form.
The House passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by a 249-183 vote on Thursday, but earlier in the day worries about its fate were severe enough that a group of Republican members launched a publicity campaign intended to counter criticism of the bill by Democrats -- as well as from within their own ranks.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert R-Ill., and about 10 members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and other committees gathered Thursday morning in front of an Exxon gas station near Capitol Hill to demand their colleagues pass the bill immediately and in its entirety.
Standing at the pumps, their message was clear: The price of oil had spiked close to $2.40 per gallon in the nation's capital and the bill was needed to reduce energy costs.
"We're very encouraged by this (bill)," said Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz. "We hope the Senate will pass similar legislation and we believe it will get better as it goes through the process."
Shadegg said the energy bill addresses subjects not introduced in last year's version. Among them, he said, is new language that supports domestic development of batteries needed for hybrid vehicles.
Several controversies surround the bill. One centers on $8 billion in recommended tax incentives for developing conventional energy sources: coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters before the vote that although the bill should have addressed the nation's high gasoline prices, it does not because the GOP wrote it in consort with energy concerns.
Pelosi called the measure "anti-consumer, anti-taxpayer and anti-environment."
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., Energy Committee chairman, in remarks on the House floor Wednesday, also criticized the bill for not including stronger language promoting energy efficiency.
"Yes, we need to increase the supply of fossil, nuclear and renewable energy," Boehlert said, "but most importantly, we need to become more energy efficient, and what does this bill do to make us more energy efficient? Virtually nothing."
Boehlert chided his colleagues for straying from the Bush administration's recommendation directing more tax incentives to alternative fuels.
"The bill provides massive tax breaks for profitable oil companies and next to nothing for new technologies that could help wean us from foreign oil," he said. "The president's budget devoted 72 percent of its proposed energy tax incentives to alternatives; this bill devotes just 6 percent to alternatives while providing more than a billion dollars more in tax breaks."
He did not support the bill during the final roll-call vote.
Boehlert and other critics have faulted the bill's failure to increase fuel efficiency standards for internal combustion engines, even though it does provide some incentives for cultivation and standardization of hybrid technology.
Other disputed provisions include the bill's relaxing of restrictions on oil drilling in economically depressed communities, its approval of drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and protection of manufacturers of the gasoline additive MTBE from litigation.
The bill does recommend allocating $3 billion to the nation's low-income energy assistance programs.
Bush administration officials have been prodding legislators in both chambers to resolve their differences, although the president has acknowledged the proposals, if passed, would not provide immediate relief for American consumers at the pump.
"An energy bill wouldn't change the price at the pump today -- I know that and you know that," Bush told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Wednesday. "I wish I could simply wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow."
The amendment ending the federal ban on oil drilling and exploration in ANWR has been criticized by environmental groups and energy policy watchdogs, who say it would endanger the area's wildlife while doing little to address the nation's increased dependence on oil -- foreign or otherwise.
Although Democrats tried to remove the ANWR amendment from the bill, Republicans thwarted those attempts. Still, the issue may stand in the way of a reconciliation with the Senate's version of the bill.
The ANWR issue has struck a nerve with several members, including Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the Resources Committee, who became visibly annoyed at a reporter's question during a news conference about its potential to derail Senate approval.
"I don't know where you got your information from," Pombo said. "The Senate has already spoken on the ANWR provision. The majority of senators have supported opening (the refuge), and if the minority opposes it, that will be something that we'll have to deal with."
Pombo said the provision is needed to increase the domestic supply and to bring stability into the market in the short term.
"We have to look at what we currently use to fuel this nation," he said.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., dismissed concern about the potential for environmental damage to the refuge.
"Most people don't realize what we're talking about," Tiahrt said. "There's this romantic image of ANWR. There's a reason nobody lives up there -- so, we're not asking very much to secure the future of American energy needs."
Meanwhile, on the Senate side, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, an outspoken opponent of the ANWR drilling, called it "not a long-term, responsible energy strategy," in a statement issued last month.
Although Snowe voted for legislation striking the provision from the FY 2006 Budget Resolution, it passed 51 to 49.
Four other Republican senators joined Snowe in her opposition to the measure, including Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.; Susan Collins, R-Maine, and John McCain, R-Ariz.
--
Joi Preciphs is an intern for UPI Science News. E-mail: [email protected]
